Association of Residential Cleaning Services International (ARCSI)

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201990152
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016, Form 990-EZ 2010
Location
Columbus, OH, USA
Phone
6145470887
Rating
50
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Reported finances

Revenue
$372,684
Expenses
$366,630
Assets
$100,127
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JEFF LANGE (President)
  • RJ PATEL (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • JEFF LANGE (President)
  • RJ PATEL (Vice President)
  • NANCY HOLEKAMP (Secretary)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To assist residential cleaning service owners in starting,

What it reported doing in 2016

Executive leadership conference is an intense two-day educational event for members covering a variety of business topics, such as employment law, operational issues, finance & accounting, & marketing. Sessions are conducted by national experts on various topics. In addition to the benefit to business owners in attending, electronic transcripts of the sessions are made available to the general membership.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 1
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0.6%; rating input score 1
  • Program expense ratio: 0.6%; rating input score 1
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.6%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.27; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0.6% of revenue deployed · 0.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 10 of 11 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2011 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 1/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.