Methodology — Arkansas EFA Schools Map

Scope

This database covers all 128 private schools approved to receive Education Freedom Account funds during 2024–25 in Arkansas, plus a small number added for 2025–26. For each school we document how much public money it received, what its published policies say about LGBT students, and where those policies can be independently verified.

Funding data

EFA expenditure figures come from two sources covering the full 2024–25 school year (July 1, 2024 – June 30, 2025):

Fall semester: DESE EFA expenditure data (FOIA, obtained by For AR People)
Spring semester: 2024–25 EFA Program Annual Report, Appendix B (University of Arkansas / Arkansas Dept. of Education, October 2025)

Per the annual report’s footnote 11: “All Appendix B tables reflect providers by expenditures from spring transactions only. Due to limitations in the fall payment processing platform, providers’ identities could not be reliably determined for that period.”

Each school’s total = fall amount (from transparency report) + spring amount (from annual report Appendix B). Of 128 schools, 123 were cross-verified across both sources. Five had no spring transactions: three had $0 total funding, and two were not found in Appendix B under any name variation.

Summary

Category	Schools	EFA Funds	% of Total

Loading funding data…

Policy classification

Every school is assigned one of four policy categories based on its published handbook, enrollment contract, or statement of faith. Classifications are based solely on what the documents say, not on reputation, denomination, or inference.

Explicit Exclusion

The school’s policy explicitly targets students with conduct rules or consequences related to sexual orientation or gender identity. Requires at least one of: student conduct requirements regarding gender expression/identity, stated consequences for students (dismissal, expulsion, denial of admission), or direct prohibitions on student behavior related to sexuality/gender.

Example: “The school reserves the right to refuse admission of an applicant or to discontinue enrollment of a student” in context of sexual orientation or gender identity policies.

General Exclusion

The school’s policy states institutional beliefs about marriage, gender, or sexuality but lacks student-specific enforcement language. These schools typically have statements of faith addressing marriage or gender without stating consequences for students who do not conform.

Key distinction: “Students must respect this statement” → general exclusion. “Students must abide by this statement” or “Students will be dismissed if…” → explicit exclusion.

Inclusive

The school’s non-discrimination policy explicitly includes sexual orientation and/or gender identity in language that applies to students (not just employment).

Example: “We do not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, color, national or ethnic origin in the admission of students.”

No Stated Policy

No accessible policy found, or the policy does not address LGBT topics. This includes schools whose handbooks are not publicly accessible, schools whose policies contain no relevant language, and religious schools with no statement of faith addressing marriage, gender, or sexuality.

Absence of exclusionary language does not equal inclusion. A school is only classified as “inclusive” if its policy explicitly mentions sexual orientation or gender identity in protective language.

Every classification follows the same decision tree. Edge cases are documented in each school’s notes field.

Documentation standards

Excerpts

All policy excerpts on this site are exact quotes copied directly from source documents. No paraphrasing. Each excerpt includes enough surrounding context to show how the policy applies to students.

Source verification

For each school with a policy classification, we provide:

Handbook URL: direct link to the original policy document (PDF or web page)
Archive URL: a Wayback Machine snapshot of the document, captured independently, so the source can be verified even if the school later removes or edits the original
SHA-256 hash: a cryptographic fingerprint of the PDF file contents, so anyone can verify the document has not been altered since we reviewed it

Coverage

Loading coverage data…

Limitations

Public documents only. We classify based on publicly accessible handbooks, enrollment contracts, and statements of faith. Schools may have internal policies not reflected in public documents.
Point-in-time. Policies can change. Our archive snapshots preserve the version we reviewed, but schools may update their handbooks at any time. Last updated dates are shown for each school.
No inference. We do not classify based on denomination, affiliation, or reputation. A Baptist school with no relevant policy language in its handbook is classified as “no stated policy,” not as exclusionary.
Funding data coverage. Five of 128 schools could not be cross-verified across both the fall transparency report and spring annual report. Three had $0 total funding; two were not matched in Appendix B under any name variation.

Corrections & contact

If any classification, excerpt, or funding figure is wrong, or if a school’s handbook URL has changed, we want to know. Contact us with the school name, the specific data point in question, and supporting documentation.

Email: reed@efamap.org