Pulaski County Adoption Coalition Inc Dba Project Zero

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
465366394
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Little Rock, AR, USA
Phone
5015196692
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Family Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$875,847
Expenses
$653,961
Assets
$1,087,170
Liabilities
$7,767

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRISTINA ERWIN (OFFICER): $74,643 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The pulaski county adoption coalition is a group of individuals whose mission is to raise awareness about the need for adoptive families for children waiting in our state foster care system; to build hope in and relationships with waiting children; and to promote and help to connect waiting children with their forever families. The coalition is made up of foster parents, adoptive parents, department of children and family services employees, attorneys, casa volunteers and others who are passionate about the children in foster care. These individuals volunteer their time and talents to help find forever families for our state's waiting children.

What it reported doing in 2025

Matching children to families - events and other efforts to identify potential adoptive and foster families, and connect children with such families.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 83% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 47
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 45%; rating input score 45
  • Program expense ratio: 58.7%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.92 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 25.3%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.66; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.4%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.3% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.8% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 45% of revenue deployed · 58.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $384K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $75K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 45/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 20/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.