Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 205895253
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2015
- Forms available
- Form 990 2015
- Location
- Columbus, OH, USA
- Phone
- 6147442266
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Educational Services and Schools - Other
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,054,645
- Expenses
- $1,309,888
- Assets
- $378,476
- Liabilities
- $529,061
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- DARLENE CHAMBERS (EXEC DIRECTO): $159,270 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Ohio alliance for public charter schools (oapcs) aspires to provide children with greater educational opportunities by improving the quality and fostering the growth of Ohio's public charter schools.
What it reported doing in 2015
Oapcs provides a wide variety of programs and services designed to help charter schools boost student performance and improve operational efficiencies. Resources provided include technical assistance programs, professional development workshops and seminars, sharing of best practices, access to financial resources, timely communications, an information-rich website and much more.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 79
- Transparency & Controls: 65
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 11
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 89.7%; rating input score 90
- Program expense ratio: 72.2%; rating input score 72
- Fundraising efficiency: $11.92 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -24.2%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.29; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.4; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 12.2%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -8.4% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 89.7% of revenue deployed · 72.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $946K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $159K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2011 to 2015
- 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.
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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 48/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 4/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.