Georgia Advocacy Office Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581299961
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Decatur, GA, USA
Phone
4048851234
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,068,256
Expenses
$5,305,851
Assets
$4,267,031
Liabilities
$3,807,207

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RUBY MOORE (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • RUBY MOORE (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $359,211 total reported compensation
  • DONOVAN HYLTON (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $266,475 total reported compensation
  • DEVON CHRISTOPHER (DIRECTOR OF LITIGATION): $263,552 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 protect the rights of, and to advocate for individuals with disabilities within the state of Georgia.

What it reported doing in 2024

Pabss representative payee program - representative payee social securitys representative payment program provides benefit payment management for beneficiaries who are incapable of managing their social security or supplemental security income payments. A suitable representative payee is assigned who manages the payments on behalf of the beneficaries. Gao is an organization selected by social security to manage the money from social security for the beneficiary needs. Gao conducted reviews on representative payees to include individual and organizational rep payees. Those reviews affected the support provided to 203 cases to include corrections and/or verification of rep payee support. Gao provided 101 information and referals under the program.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 98% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 93% 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.3%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 86.2%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.7%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.8; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.89; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 36.7%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 90.3% of revenue deployed · 86.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $4.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $359K · 18 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 14 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.