Central Arkansas Planning & Development District Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
710410563
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Lonoke, AR, USA
Phone
5016762721
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,317,429
Expenses
$2,333,168
Assets
$4,082,246
Liabilities
$966,983

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

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RODNEY LARSEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • RODNEY LARSEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $157,515 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 administer various federal programs, for the purpose of assisting the employment and development of economically disadvantaged individuals and businesses.

What it reported doing in 2024

Central Arkansas planning and development district (capdd) serves as a catalyst for economic, community and workforce development to ensure regional preparedness in central Arkansas. Capdd administers various federal programs, primarily the workforce investment act, for the purpose of assisting the employment and development of the human potential to meet the challenging demands of the global job market. Capdd provides many services that help improve communities economically, as well as ecologically by assisting with community and economic grant programs for public works development, as well as recreation and tourism development. Capdd offers assistance for a wide variety of funding sources to help communities plan and sustain economnic growth.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 72% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 98
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 66.7%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 65.9%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 96%; rating input score 96; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
    • 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 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.75; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.8%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -13.9% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7.5% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 66.7% of revenue deployed · 65.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 24 of 25 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $158K · 26 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.