Houston Bar Association Alternative Dispute Resolution Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
742107776
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Houston, TX, USA
Phone
7132747100
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Dispute Resolution, Mediation Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$719,544
Expenses
$722,243
Assets
$633,169
Liabilities
$120

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Nicholas Hall (Executive Director, to 4/18/25)
  • Stephen Kreider (Executive Director, from 3/1/25)

Highest reported compensation

  • Stephen Kreider (Executive Director, from 3/1/25): $90,980 total reported compensation
  • Nicholas Hall (Executive Director, to 4/18/25): $42,205 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 conflict resolution assistance to Harris County residents through education, referral, and alternative dispute resolution services, with emphasis on assisting parties who might not otherwise have access to such services.

What it reported doing in 2025

With funding from the Harris County Court system, DRC provides Harris County citizens free access to the justice system through alternative dispute resolution procedures. DRC provides intake, information, referral systems, and education and training programs, primarily focusing on those who otherwise have no or limited access. DRC serves thousands of people each year. Legal professionals donated 8,682 hours of volunteer services in 2025.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 98% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 68.8%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 68.3%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.4%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.88; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.4%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 68.8% of revenue deployed · 68.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $493K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $91K · 21 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Whistleblower policy not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.