Rescued Not Arrested Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
813743861
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2019, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Phone
6026478325
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Christianity
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$397,546
Expenses
$393,965
Assets
$626,946
Liabilities
$386,752

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HRACH ROGER MUNCHIAN (DIRECTOR - PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • HRACH ROGER MUNCHIAN (DIRECTOR - PRESIDENT)
  • DIANA VINCENT (TREASURER)
  • SIRARPI MUNCHIAN (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To reach the incarcerated and their loved ones with the good news of the gospel, the great commission. To educate churches to effectively embrace the formerly incarcerated. To provide inmates and chaplains niv bibles free of charge.

What it reported doing in 2025

Rescued not arrested distributed tens of thousands of english and spanish niv bibles and rescued not arrested testimony books to the incarcerated housed in thousands of prisons in all 50 states, as well as to chaplains nationwide and missionaries who carried them around the world. The organization paid all postage costs allowing the recipients to receive these resources at no cost. Rescued not arrested partnered with the Arizona second chance program, providing virtual re-entry talks at local prisons. Rna also provided these inmates with solid job, housing, and accountability resources. The organization also works with all three federal, state and county prisons in Arizona.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and revenue has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 59
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 52.7%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 53.2%; rating input score 53
  • Fundraising efficiency: $21.58 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.9%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.59; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.62; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 28.1% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 52.7% of revenue deployed · 53.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $210K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 23 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grants require schedule f did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.