Explornetqtl Centers for Quality Teaching and Learning

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
561977952
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019, Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Fayetteville, AR, USA
Phone
5018376011
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$169,242
Expenses
$183,499
Assets
$41,653
Liabilities
$147,915

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANGELA MCCALLIE (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANGELA MCCALLIE (CEO): $60,575 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to reach every student, every day by providing instructional resources, training and support for educators at all levels. We achieve this through delivery of cutting edge professional learning solutions and custom-crafted courses that use student data, technology, research-based practices and purposeful collaboration.

What it reported doing in 2019

The program provides training for teachers in computer engineering and digital media as well as ongoing professional development. Since its beginning, qtl has impacted more than 17,000 teachers and administrators, who subsequently impacted over 3 million students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 81% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 53
  • Sustainability: 16
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 92.3%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -8.4%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.23; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 3.55; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 33%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -15.5% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -21% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -13.5% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 92.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $169K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $61K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2011 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.

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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.