The Arc of Pennsylvania

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
231421914
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lemoyne, PA, USA
Phone
7172342621
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,241,458
Expenses
$2,702,085
Assets
$3,362,208
Liabilities
$269,137

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHERRI LANDIS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JULIE GERHART-ROTHHOLZ (CO-PRESIDENT)
  • JOSH STRANIX (CO-PRESIDENT)
  • MICHAEL DEVER (CO-VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ZACHARY HICKS (CO-VICE PRESIDENT)
  • LUCILLE PIGGOTT-PRAWL (IMMEDIATE PAST CO-PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHERRI LANDIS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $186,181 total reported compensation
  • TRACY GROSS-FRITZ (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $120,767 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 arc of Pennsylvania works to include all children and adults with intellectual and development disabilities in every community and provide advocacy and resources to these citizens and their families.

What it reported doing in 2024

Covid-19 education and outreach - program to help the disability community through the covid-19 pandemic through setting up a statewide task force, develop strategies and build capacity for accessible covid-19 tetsing sites, mobile testing and vaccine distributions, distribution of personal protective equipment, contact tracing , promotion of other mitigation efforts, develop accessible and inclusive e-learning content to increase educational awareness around the covid-19 disease and vaccines and develop covid-19 educational and outreach materials.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 73% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.6%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 97.9%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7,805.1 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.6%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.24; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.4%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.6% of revenue deployed · 97.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 10 filed program accomplishments · $2.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $186K · 25 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.