Common Market Georgia Incorporated

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474769308
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
East Point, GA, USA
Phone
2152753435
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Food Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,165,506
Expenses
$1,296,024
Assets
$2,958,402
Liabilities
$2,424,834

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • HAILE JOHNSTON (CHIEF DEVELO): $265,422 total reported compensation
  • BILL GREEN (EXECUTIVE DI): $112,129 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 organization is a non-profit that distributes local and sustainably produced foods. The organization's public purpose is to implement educational programs that improve access to local foods for residents of underserved low income communities; and to inform institutions and businesses of opportunities to add value to local farm products by processing them for their constituents and customers. Our public purpose is to also establish wholesale distribution of locally produced farm products so that the supply of locally produced farm food is assured. Our mission is to connect communities with good food from sustaiable family farms. We strive to improve food security, farm viability and community and ecological health.

What it reported doing in 2024

Distribution of locally grown Georgia area produce. In an effort to sustain and promoted the regional farm system and expand community food access. Not included in program income and expense were 7,348,659 in gross sales of local produce and 6,353,218 in related costs

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

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 total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 85
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 55.4%; rating input score 55
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 19th 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -11.2%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.28; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.82; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.7%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.7% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 20% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 39.7% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 55.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $718K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $265K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 4 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 — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 41/100.