The Narbha Institute Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 866037149
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Flagstaff, AZ, USA
- Phone
- 9282338667
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Behavioral Science
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $9,120,552
- Expenses
- $14,593,713
- Assets
- $73,101,710
- Liabilities
- $1,850,018
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MARY JO GREGORY (PRESIDENT & CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- MARY JO GREGORY (PRESIDENT & CEO): $897,121 total reported compensation
- TERESA BERTSCH (CMO): $512,157 total reported compensation
- MICHAEL KUZMIN (CFO): $403,878 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Serve medicaid managed care subcontract, supported housing for mentally ill, convener/supporter in health/social determinants. Drive improved mental health outcomes for vulnerable populations via affiliated agency providing outpatient, inpatient & residential svs.
What it reported doing in 2024
Through a disregarded entity (well north communities llc), the narbha intitute provides permanent supported housing to approximately 40 individuals and famililes living with serious mental illness in northern Arizona. Tenants pay an income-adjusted portion of rent (which is often zero) and reside in apartments purchsed with funding from the Arizona department of health serivces. While not listed on the financial statements as an expense, the opportunity cost of these heavily discounted rents is over $375,000 per year excluding utilities, based on hud and survey data.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 75% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 61% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 82
- Transparency & Controls: 93
- Accountability: 60
- Sustainability: 36
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 80%; rating input score 80
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 98.6%; rating input score 99; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 40%; rating input score 40; 7th 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: -60%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.01; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 21.6%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -29.6% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -19.1% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 80% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 2 of 5 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $11.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $897K · 12 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $569K reported
- Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 69 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 58 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.
- Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 40/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.