The Arc of Greater Tarrant County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
751488945
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2013
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Fort Worth, TX, USA
Phone
8178771474
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Developmentally Disabled Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$361,738
Expenses
$367,698
Assets
$272,271
Liabilities
$67,764

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • BETH CAIN (PRIOR IDD NC): $40,000 total reported compensation
  • ERINN HALL (PRIOR EXEC D): $35,000 total reported compensation
  • CAROLYN PRESNALL (DIR-IDD NEED): $30,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To empower people with intellectual and developmental disabilities to achieve their full potential and live fulfilling lives.

What it reported doing in 2013

Idd needs council of tarrant county the idd needs council of tarrant county, a newer program under the arc, was started in january 2010 to serve as a community coalition of providers, public officials, families and self advocates who have come together to increase opportunities for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. It is a collaboration of 16 public and private member organizations, as well as individuals with idd and their families. The objective of the idd needs council is to develop plans for long-term changes to services provided to the idd community, while addressing key issues and providing immediate solutions where possible. Meetings are held monthly. In may 2013, the idd needs council hosted an inclusive faith- based communities symposium, "better together," which focused on building relationships among persons with disabilities, their families and the faith community. A grant from the Texas council for developmental disabilities provided 75% of the support for this symposium.

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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 77.2%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $23.71 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.6%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.74; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.25; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 29.5%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
  • Where the money goes: 80% of revenue deployed · 77.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $284K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $40K · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.