Georgia Extension 4-H Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
582155030
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Phone
7708872418
Rating
57
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$82,948
Expenses
$66,319
Assets
$135,407
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

People named in this filing

  • Heather Kolich (County Extension Coordinator)

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

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organization's primary exempt purpose is to organize and administer 4-H, Agriculture and Natural Resources, and Family and Consumer Sciences programs in Forsyth County, Georgia.

What it reported doing in 2025

Agriculture and Natural Resources Programs, including Master Naturalist and Master Gardener Extension Volunteers, provided certificate training for pest management professionals and citizen scientists, as well as horticulture and environmental education programs for 9,136 county clients.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% 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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 26
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 23.9%; rating input score 24
  • Program expense ratio: 30.2%; rating input score 30

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 20%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.04; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -15.3% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.2% per year; rating input score 0; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 23.9% of revenue deployed · 30.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $20K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.