Arc Human Services

Legal name: The Arc Washington County Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
800448633
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Jul 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Canonsburg, PA, US
Phone
(724) 745-3010
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Developmentally Disabled Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$299,634
Expenses
$297,681
Assets
$48,519
Liabilities
$35,396

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NANCY MUHA (PRESIDENT)
  • DARRILYN MCCREREY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • EDWARD PICCHIARINI (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • EDWARD PICCHIARINI (CEO): $386,170 total reported compensation
  • CAROL GRANT (CPO): $298,018 total reported compensation
  • JOSEPH SCRIP (CFO): $267,186 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Empowering individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) and mental health challenges to live fulfilling, self-directed lives within their communities through technology-first approaches.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization provides a much needed resource for individuals with disabilities and their families. The goal is to provide advocacy, assurance, assistance, and accessibility to and for individuals and families with disabilities to allow them to receive the services that they need. The organization also has a self advocacy program to encourage and empower individuals with disabilities to use their voice, speak up, and ensure their rights are being honored and respected.

Operating model

Revenue model
Affiliate-supported. 65% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.5%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 58.9%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.69 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • 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: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.7%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.16; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.73; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 68.9%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -7.7% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 8 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 58.5% of revenue deployed · 58.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $175K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $386K · 14 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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 59/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.