Black River Area Housing Development Corporation for Clay County
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 710586053
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Pocahontas, AR, USA
- Phone
- 8708924547
- Rating
- 59
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Low-Income & Subsidized Rental Housing
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $256,800
- Expenses
- $188,956
- Assets
- $578,507
- Liabilities
- $112,983
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- HASSEL PATTERSON (Vice President)
- FRED MARTIN (President)
Highest reported compensation
- AMY THOMAS (Executive Dir.): $73,324 total reported compensation
- HASSEL PATTERSON (Vice President): $55,608 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To provide elderly persons and handicapped persons with housing facilities and services specially designed to meet their physical, social and physchological needs, and to promote their health, security, happiness and usefulness in longer living, the charges for such facilities and services to be predicated upon the provision, maintenance and operating thereof on a nonprofit basis.
What it reported doing in 2025
To provide elderly persons and handicapped persons with housing facilities and services specially designed to meet their physical, social and physchological needs, and to promote their health, security, happiness and usefulness in longer living, the charges for such facilities and services to be predicated upon the provision, maintenance and opeartiong thereof on a nonprofit basis.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
The verdict
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most filed governance safeguards are in place. 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: 34
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 62
- Sustainability: 59
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 32.9%; rating input score 33
- Program expense ratio: 45.7%; rating input score 46
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 50%; rating input score 50; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 26.4%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.06; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: Limited
Growth
- Program expense growth: -3% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 32.9% of revenue deployed · 45.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 2 of 4 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $86K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $73K · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2013 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Related organizations: 7 filed related-organization links
- 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 33/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 46/100.
- Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.