The Downtown Little Rock Partnership

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
710602465
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Little Rock, AR, USA
Phone
5013750121
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$818,768
Expenses
$841,283
Assets
$392,371
Liabilities
$203,864

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

Leadership & pay

70 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GABE HOLMSTROM (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • DAVID SARGENT (PRESIDENT)
  • CAROL WORLEY (PAST PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • GABE HOLMSTROM (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $176,418 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 organization strives to provide leadership by addressing or advocating for planning, legislation, transportation, economic development and numerous public and private initiatives. These initiatives serve to strengthen the overall downtown business, cultural, entertainment, recreational, and residential communities and to enhance the image of downtown little rock.

What it reported doing in 2024

Downtown development - to stimulate and encourage the modernization and development of the central business district of the city of little rock, ar, in order to prevent urban blight and decay, reduce unsafe and unsanitary conditions for the benefit of the general public. The company created a main street revitalization committee to assist with 'turning the corner on main street'. The committee partnered with the city of little rock in the revitalization efforts. Early successes have included the announcement of renovations to the building at 315 main street for a jazz cafe and bar, and apartments, a security camera at the corner of 3rd and main, and the completion of streetscape alterations at the repertory theatre.leadership, advocacy, and fundraising assistance for mcarthur park group's development of a master plan to upgrade historic mcarthur park to a 'class a' park designation as well as better integration of the park with it's historic neighborhood in an urban setting. The group has also developed the museum art and heritage (walking) trail and the accompanying award winning Arkansas political history audio tour.

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 91% 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.6%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 69.4%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.45 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th 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: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 56.7%; rating input score 57; 30th 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; 63rd 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: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.7%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.47; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.52; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.4% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71.6% of revenue deployed · 69.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 70 of 70 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $584K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $176K · 70 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 20/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.