Georgia State Society, NSDAR

Legal name: GA State Society-Natl Society Daughters of the AM Revolution

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
586039278
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2020, Form 990-N 2009
Location
Quitman, GA, USA
Phone
2295610725
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$592,488
Expenses
$488,007
Assets
$1,665,813
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

People named in this filing

  • HELEN ROBERTSON POWELL (STATE REGENT)
  • AMY PITTMAN LAWSON (FIRST VICE REGENT)
  • ANN BENSON AMEYE (SECOND VICE REGENT)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Historic Preservation, Education, and Patriotism

What it reported doing in 2024

Georgia state society nsdar promotes historic preservation, education, and patriotism through a variety of efforts including supporting daughters of the american revolution 58-6039278 ga state society-nat'l society. Georgia state society, nsdar promotes historic preservation, education, veterans and active military, giving awards and scholarships, and restoring meadow garden (the home of george walton, signer of the declaration of independence) to better interpret the accurate history and share with the public.

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 77% for direct work, and 23% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.3%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 63.5%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 55%; rating input score 55; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: 17.6%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.41; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 7 programs and campaigns described on the official site
  • Where the money goes: 54.3% of revenue deployed · 63.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $310K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 55/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Whistleblower policy not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.