Board of Control for Southern Regional Education

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
580566141
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
4048759211
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$22,060,698
Expenses
$22,722,790
Assets
$39,272,178
Liabilities
$9,716,730

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

Leadership & pay

92 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STEPHEN L PRUITT (PRESIDENT)
  • HARRY D WINKLER (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • STEPHEN L PRUITT (PRESIDENT): $384,171 total reported compensation
  • HARRY D WINKLER (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT): $229,382 total reported compensation
  • STEVE K BROOME (DIRECTOR, SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT): $214,846 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 board of control for southern regional education shall be devoted to the task of assisting states, institutions and agencies concerned with higher education in their efforts to advance knowledge and to improve the social and economic level of the southern region. In aiding such states, institutions and agencies, the board shall explore fully, recommend where desirable, and develop where needed, interstate collaboration in the support, expansion or establishment of regional services or schools for graduate, professional and technical education.

What it reported doing in 2024

In 2024-2025 sreb continued to partner with multiple districts in New Mexico to provide school improvement services. Contracted districts included albuquerque, carlsbad, gadsden, lovington, and roswell. Also contained in this cost center was work for sahuarita school district in Arizona for a one-off math instructional professional development and coaching project. As for the work in New Mexico, albuquerque support included follow-up services after the curriculum and instruction reviews from the previous year. This included focus team development in all twenty of its high schools and associated leadership and instructional coaching dedicated to the priorities chosen by the school leadership. Gadsden support included continued support for cte staff on project based learning, leadership coaching for cte assistant principals and implementation of a middle school career exploration course. Carlsbad continued its support to successfully operate career themed academies for the high school; leadership training, counseling training and coaching support were provided for both the career enrichment center and the high school. Instructional support was continued to increase the use of project based learning. Carlsbad municipal schools also partnered with sreb this year to conduct a strategic plan for the district including the development of a state required profile of a graduate. In roswell, sreb continued training on project based learning with a new cohort and provided leadership and focus team support for the four middle school campuses. In addition, professional learning and coaching was provided to school counselors district wide. Finally, we trained and supported teachers that were utilizing sreb's advanced career curricula. In lovington, we provided project based learning training and support for the middle school's stem program, as well as concentrated leadership coaching for new principals.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 66% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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 - 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 revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 76.2%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.73; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.25; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.4%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80% of revenue deployed · 76.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 79 of 79 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $17.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $384K · 92 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $458K reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 13 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.