Ontrack Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237088811
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Medford, OR, USA
Phone
5417721777
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$19,120,637
Expenses
$15,919,440
Assets
$46,840,448
Liabilities
$26,048,862

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TREVOR ARNOLD (PRESIDENT)
  • SOMMER WOLCOTT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SOMMER WOLCOTT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $178,479 total reported compensation
  • CONSTANCE WILKERSON (DIR. OF PROG. DEV. & GRANT ADMIN.): $105,429 total reported compensation
  • KATRIN YOUNT (CLINICAL DIRECTOR): $104,656 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Ontrack rogue valley's mission is to empower individuals and families to overcome addiction, poverty, and social stigma through integrative counseling, education, skills training, and stable housing that sustains recovery.

What it reported doing in 2024

Inpatient programs for women, children, fathers and AIDS patients with alchohol and drug problems: ontrack residential treatment provides substance use treatment for individuals assessed at a 3.5 asam level of care. Our residential programs provide services and support 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and include a wide range of evidence-based groups, skills training, and wellness-oriented activities designed to support individuals on their path to recovery.all our services are strengths-based and treat individuals with dignity and respect. We welcome family involvement and visits that support healthy connections and recovery. We offer care coordination, collaboration with medical and mental health professionals, and coordinate with mat clinics and pharmacies to ensure access to medication to support recovery (mat).individuals in residential treatment meet with their care team on a regular basis to begin discharge/transition planning, celebrate successes, and problem-solve challenges. The care team and individual collaborate to determine the length of treatment and plans for discharging to a lower level of care.

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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Liabilities are high compared with assets and the available information about grant readiness federal audit leaves an important question unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 70
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 62.9%; rating input score 63
  • Program expense ratio: 76.8%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • 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: 8 of 8 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: 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: 16.7%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.94; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.56; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.4%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 62.9% of revenue deployed · 76.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $12.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $178K · 16 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $583K reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

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 — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.