Asian Americans Advancing Justice Atlanta Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
272577567
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2012, Form 990-N 2010
Location
Norcross, GA, USA
Phone
4045858446
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Ethnic, Immigrant Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,120,857
Expenses
$7,999,578
Assets
$10,268,412
Liabilities
$786,648

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • STEPHANIE CHO (DIR. DEMOCRACY LAB): $166,756 total reported compensation
  • MURTAZA KHWAJA (Executive Dir.): $151,876 total reported compensation
  • CAPPEL SOOKDEO (CFO): $150,390 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Atlanta's mission is to protect and promote the civil and human rights of Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders in Georgia and the Southeast through policy advocacy, legal services, organizing & civic engagement, and impact litigation.

What it reported doing in 2024

Policy Advocacy We work collaboratively with other immigrant and civil rights groups to make sure that we stand united and work on issues that impact people of color. Every year we host an advocacy day for the largest gathering of the Asian American community, business, and faith leaders at our state capitol.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 93% 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 most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.7%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 78.6%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $16.76 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th 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: 55.9%; rating input score 56; 16th 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -12.3%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.28; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.3%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 23.3% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 20.1% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.1% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.7% of revenue deployed · 78.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $6.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $167K · 19 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $132K reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 28 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 20 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 54/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.