Better Ballot Georgia Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 862004198
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2022–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2023
- Location
- Atlanta, GA, USA
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Alliance/Advocacy Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $97,687
- Expenses
- $72,812
- Assets
- $32,117
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Daniel Baggerman (President)
People named in this filing
- Daniel Baggerman (President)
- Melinda Delisle (Treasurer)
- Robert Prather (Secretary)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Educate citizens in Georgia on the concept and advantages of Ranked Choice Voting.
What it reported doing in 2024
Educate and support volunteers and other interested people about ranked choice voting how to use it how it would work in Georgia and similar topics. Includes volunteer training onboarding and support supporting chapter leads creating training resources and other tasks to support educate and train volunteers and others interested in potentially using ranked choice voting.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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
STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 70
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 51
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 61.5%; rating input score 62
- Program expense ratio: 82.5%; rating input score 83
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 25.5%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.44; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 14.1% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 28.1% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 16% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 61.5% of revenue deployed · 82.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 8 filed program accomplishments · $60K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2022 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.