Georgia Intellectual Property Alliance Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
825484620
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Marietta, GA, USA
Phone
4043956606
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy

Reported finances

Revenue
$190,530
Expenses
$211,079
Assets
$500,089
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

92 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Scott Frank (President)
  • Corrine Sukiennik (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Becky Patrick (Director): $9 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

GIPA exists to make IP less intimidating so that people can successfully bring their ideas to market. We provide the resources expertise and connections to ensure peoples ideas can become a profitable reality. Just when innovators and creators have become such a vital contributor of our economy and the need for IP has become more apparent IP has gotten a bad reputation. The need for someone to make sense of it all has become so important. GIPA makes IP less intimidating so that people can successfully bring their ideas to market. When people come in contact with us we can assure them that no one can provide better resources expertise and connections to ensure their ideas can become a profitable reality.

What it reported doing in 2025

Consist of two other events. An Intellectual Property Leadership Award and a Startup Awards. The awards events gave monetary awards to individuals and or organizations showing leadership in support of the intellectual property community and had formed a startup company with a creative product respectively

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 89% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.7%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 74.7%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -10.8%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.37; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 56.6% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.7% of revenue deployed · 74.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 92 of 92 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $158K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $9 · 92 people listed
  • Consistency: 35 of 43 current checks pass · 8 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Advertising column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLegal column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Travel column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.