The Association for Retarded Citizens Matagorda County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
741239530
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2015
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Bay City, TX, USA
Phone
9794791061
Rating
96
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Developmentally Disabled Centers

Reported finances

Revenue
$140,559
Expenses
$43,959
Assets
$336,994
Liabilities
$650

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Greg Crain (PRESIDENT)
  • Malene Georgeson (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Greg Crain (PRESIDENT)
  • Malene Georgeson (Vice President)
  • Eric Schroeder (SECRETARY - RECORDING)

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

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The arc of matagorda county is committed to securing for all people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, the opportunity to choose and realize their goals of where and how they learn, live, work, and play.

What it reported doing in 2015

The arc of matagorda county provides the edith armstrong center where adults with intellectual and development disabilities go for education, training, and social activities. The age ranges are 22 through 70. The activities provided promote healthy living, improved social skills, making appropriate choices, and other skills designed to promote independence. Some vocational training is provided to help develop job skills to enable individuals to participate in supported or independent employment.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 76% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and the available information about grant readiness automatic revocation leaves an important question unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 98
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 90
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 95.3%; rating input score 95

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 68.7%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.67; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.1% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 19.6% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 95.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $42K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2010 to 2015
  • 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.

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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.