Arkansas Public School Resource Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
262904183
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Little Rock, AR, USA
Phone
5014924300
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$22,382,555
Expenses
$20,959,295
Assets
$15,456,117
Liabilities
$5,998,149

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SCOTT SMITH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SCOTT SMITH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $293,639 total reported compensation
  • JEANA WILLIAMS (DIRECTOR, TEACHING & LEARNING): $195,717 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL HELMS (DIRECTOR, LEGAL SERVICES): $189,290 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To provide assistance and professional development services to children, parents, faculty and staff of open enrollment, public, charter, and rural schools. To enhance learning, improve education and fiscal practices within school systems.

What it reported doing in 2024

Teacher and school leader grant (promoting educator effectiveness in rural Arkansas (peer)): the purpose of the tsl grant is to assist states, local educational agencies (leas), and nonprofit organizations to develop, implement, improve, or expand comprehensive performance-based compensation systems (pbcs) or human capital management systems (hcms) for teachers, principals, and other school leaders (educators). Especially for educators in high-need schools who raise student growth and academic achievement and close the achievement gap between high and low performing students. The apsrc tsl grant is enacted in partnership with the crowley's ridge education service cooperative (cresc) through promoting educator effectiveness in rural Arkansas, the peer network.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 70% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 66% 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. 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: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 93.8%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th 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: 96.9%; rating input score 97; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.4%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.74; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.39; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.7%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 18.8% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.4% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88% of revenue deployed · 93.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $19.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $294K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 21 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 18 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.