Atlanta Preservation Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581387857
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
4046883353
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies & Historic Preservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$364,144
Expenses
$308,723
Assets
$1,533,546
Liabilities
$25,451

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • IAN M ROGERS (PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID Y MITCHELL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • MEGAN HODGKISS (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAVID Y MITCHELL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $167,016 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 atlanta preservation center inc works to preserve atlantas historic buildings, neighborhoods and landscapes, through education and advovacy.

What it reported doing in 2024

The center educates metro area residents and visitors of all ages about the benefits of protecting and redeveloping historic structures through guided walking tours, school programs, lectures, and art exhibits, book signings, seminars on preservation practices and historic tax incentives, and a three week long festival, the phoenix flies: a celebration of atlantas historic sites with over 100 preservation partners.

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

MIXED - 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.7%; rating input score 49
  • Program expense ratio: 44.4%; rating input score 44
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.99 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 15.2%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.97; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 54.1%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.8% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.4% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.7% of revenue deployed · 44.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $137K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $167K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 49/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 13/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.