Arc of Onondaga

Legal name: Nysarc Inc Onondaga County Chapter

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
150561718
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Syracuse, NY, US
Phone
315-476-7441
Rating
88
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Developmentally Disabled Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$32,601,048
Expenses
$31,766,721
Assets
$19,975,949
Liabilities
$7,281,688

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMES FLYNN (PRESIDENT)
  • SUSAN SCHAROUN (FIRST VICE PRESIDENT)
  • CHRISOPHER MASON (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ELLEN GUTMAKER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ELLEN GUTMAKER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $312,378 total reported compensation
  • DANIEL SMITH (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $177,594 total reported compensation
  • DONNA LOVELAND (CHIEF COMPLIANCE & QUALITY): $165,477 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Arc of Onondaga supports people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Day habilitation supports people with developmental disabilities who have higher needs for more intense training in order to make their community experience, and the experience of the community, more positive. Day habilitation provides individuals with developmental disabilities opportunities to learn skills to achieve a higher level of independence, a stronger awareness and responsibility to community inclusion and to feel productive in their lives as unique individuals. 302 persons served.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 97% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.3%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 88.4%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $326.57 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.6%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.63; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.36; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.7%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 10 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 86.3% of revenue deployed · 88.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $28.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $312K · 22 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $3.7M reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.