Georgia Association of Conservation Districts Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 582539935
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-PF 2010
- Location
- Athens, GA, USA
- Phone
- 4045124583
- Rating
- 86
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,490,391
- Expenses
- $1,314,553
- Assets
- $2,081,235
- Liabilities
- $20,725
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
18 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ELLIS LAMME (Vice President)
- Jake Ford (President)
- Brian Ponder (Vice President)
- MARK MASTERS (PAST PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- ELLIS LAMME (Vice President)
- JIM WATERS (Secretary)
- Roger Bowman (BOARD MEMBER EM)
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
Advocating for the conservation of Georgias natural resources by providing organization, leadership and a unified strategic direction to the soil and water conservation districts of the state.
What it reported doing in 2024
Georgia Association of Conservation Districts, Inc. (GACD) represents 40 soil and water conservation districts in Georgia. GACD coordinated and executed four regional meetings and one statewide convention for District Supervisors. We also provided Legislative Advocacy via Conservation District Day at the Capitol, Rural Caucus Luncheon and more. We worked with state and federal partners to lead feral hog control initiatives, 3 feral hog control workshops, and outreach events for farmers and landowners. We represented Georgia at several Southeastern and National events including NACD Annual Meeting, Southeast Meeting, and Association of Executive Directors. We awarded scholarships and provided other educational opportunities to K-12 students such as Natural Resources Conservation Workshop, Envirothon, Ag Days, and Poster and Photo Contests. Held 5 continuing education training events for board members.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 79% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 66% for direct work, and 34% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 77
- Transparency & Controls: 89
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 65
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 82.3%; rating input score 82
- Program expense ratio: 92.5%; rating input score 93
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 11.8%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.58; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 17.8% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 82.3% of revenue deployed · 92.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 18 people listed
- Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 25 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.