Pulaski County Neighborhood Alliance for Habitat

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
263443336
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2019, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Little Rock, AR, USA
Phone
5013764434
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Reported finances

Revenue
$60,425
Expenses
$14,925
Assets
$671,352
Liabilities
$33,226

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CALEB GARCIA (PRESIDENT)
  • BRADLEY ROBERTSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRADLEY ROBERTSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $6,577 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The pulaski county neighborhood alliance's mission is to support the elimination of impoverished housing and homelessness by building adequate and basic housing.

What it reported doing in 2024

The pulaski county neighborhood alliance for habitat (pcna) is a subsidiary of habitat for humanity of central Arkansas, inc. And was established in an effort to increase the supply of affordable housing units in pulaski county, Arkansas. Pcna is an active community housing development organization and is committed to furthering habitat's vision of a world in which everyone has a decent, affordable place to call home. Since inception, pcna has constructed 16 single-family residences through the home investment partnership program; each house was built to meet energy star standards, and all were sold to qualified home buyers at a zero-percent interest rate mortgage.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 80% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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

SUPPORTED - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 34
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 16.8%; rating input score 17
  • Program expense ratio: 73%; rating input score 73
  • 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 75.3%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 44.98; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 44.1%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 16.8% of revenue deployed · 73% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $11K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $7K · 4 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $271K reported
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 17/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.