The Arc Greater Twin Cities

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
410782848
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
St Paul, MN, USA
Phone
9529200855
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Developmentally Disabled Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,384,588
Expenses
$14,413,543
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

31 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KIM KEPRIOS (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • KIM KEPRIOS (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $230,881 total reported compensation
  • LISETTE SCHLOSSER (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $138,949 total reported compensation
  • STEVE PIEKARSKI (CHIEF PROGRAM OFFICER): $113,663 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The arc promotes and protects the human rights of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, actively supporting them and their families in a lifetime of full inclusion and participation in their communities.

What it reported doing in 2017

Program four - public awareness, membership and volunteer engagement. Public awareness outreach about intellectual and developmental disabilities include arc e-newsletter (40,000 email subscribers), website (50,000 annual visitors) the arc facebook page (2,200 fans), twitter (1,000 followers). In addition, messages about the arc are included in all arc's value thrift store and donation center communications, reaching more than 1 million shoppers donors and volunteers. Volunteering is another way individuals connect with the arc. Volunteers provided 113,500 hours in support of the arc gtc's programs and services, and in the operations of the arc's value village thrift stores. The arc gtc is a grassroots organization of individuals with disabilities, their families, and other individual and professional groups interested in issues affecting people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Membership connects people to networks of support and strengthens members voices on public policy issues.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 84% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, 22% for grants, and 1% for affiliated organizations.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and the required major-donor schedule is missing or incomplete.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 7
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 93.2%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.47 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th 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: -38.8%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.4%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -11.6% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 93.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 22 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $13.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $231K · 31 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $103K reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 37 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2010 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.

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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 23/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.