Boys & Girls Clubs of Georgia Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
831259454
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
4043743130
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$229,269
Expenses
$185,653
Assets
$566,458
Liabilities
$11,276

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MIKE CONRADS (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MAT MATHEWS (DIRECTOR): $378,516 total reported compensation
  • PERRY COOPER (DIRECTOR): $294,474 total reported compensation
  • OMAR GUESSOUS (DIRECTOR): $191,384 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To promote exclusively the social welfare of boys and girls in Georgia; to provide guidance and to promote the health, social, educational, vocational, character, and cultural development of boys(continued on schedule o) and girls in Georgia without regard to race, color, creed, or national origin; and to receive, invest, and disburse funds, and to hold property for the purpose of the corporation.

What it reported doing in 2024

Healthmpowers and boys and girls clubs of Georgia worked together with different organizations across the state to implement the girls empowering movement program (gem). The main objective of this program is to improve middle school girls' physical activity and fitness levels. The program directly addresses the challenge of providing girls with access and opportunities for regular physical activity while empowering them to become change-agents in their schools and communities.(continued on schedule o)gem provides leadership training to approximately 7,000 girls at 120 selected sites, spanning xx Georgia counties. Girls will gain skills in leadership, fitness, advocacy, and social-emotional learning - and lead the creation of physical activity programming specific to each site based on their own preferences, motivators, and goals. As gem ambassadors, girls will develop new physical activity programs and leadership opportunities for their peers - reaching a total of approximately 18,000 girls across the state.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 46% for direct work, and 54% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 75
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.1%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th 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: 93.1%; rating input score 93; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 57.1%; rating input score 57; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 19%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.05; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 87.9%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 40.3% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.1% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $186K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $379K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 9 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 57/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.