Georgia Extension 4-H Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 582637223
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2023–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2022
- Location
- Garden City, GA, USA
- Phone
- 9126527981
- Rating
- 70
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $66,232
- Expenses
- $57,304
- Assets
- $90,086
- Liabilities
- $1,263
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
People named in this filing
- Richard Evans (County Extension Coordinator)
- Jackie Ogden (Extension Agent)
- Sergia Gabelmann (County Agent)
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
To organize and administer 4-H, Agriculture and Natural Resources, & Family and consumer Sciences programs in Chatham County, Georgia
What it reported doing in 2025
The Agriculture and Natural Resources Program service clients in Chatham County by providing outreach education, soil and water testing. Chatham County 4-H Program serve youths in public, private and homeschool an opportunity to learn life skill through educations and hand on learning activities. Provide camp opportunities. Family and Consumer Program offers educational workshop on healthy eating, finance and food preservation.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 66% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 63
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 57
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 60%; rating input score 60
- Program expense ratio: 69.3%; rating input score 69
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 13.5%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.57; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 44.7% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -8.3% per year; rating input score 0; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 22.5% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 60% of revenue deployed · 69.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $40K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.