Georgia Legal Services Program Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581111590
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
4042065175
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Human Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$24,437,173
Expenses
$24,636,120
Assets
$21,761,556
Liabilities
$5,518,424

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

Leadership & pay

31 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SETH BRUCKNER (PRESIDENT)
  • JULIA H SULLIVAN (PRESIDENT - ELECT)
  • MATTHEW W HOWELL (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • SUSAN COPPEDGE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SUSAN COPPEDGE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $217,297 total reported compensation
  • LISA KRISHER (DIRECTOR OF LITIGATION & ADVOCACY): $210,385 total reported compensation
  • IRA FOSTER (GENERAL COUNSEL): $188,507 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Georgia legal services program is a nonprofit corporation whose mission is to provide civil legal services for persons with low incomes, creating equal access to justice and opportunities out of poverty. We believe everyone has a right to high-quality legal services regardless of income, age, race, or other demographic factors. Our nonprofit law firm exists to ensure qualifying georgians have access to free legal assistance and/or representation from experienced staff and trusted partners.

What it reported doing in 2024

Elder legal assistance and elder abuse prevention projects provide services funded under the older americans act(oaa). The projects are designed to provide assistance in the identification, prevention and/or treatment of elder abuse, neglect and exploitation for seniors with a social or economic need.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 65% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.4%; rating input score 92
  • Program expense ratio: 91.4%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $61.68 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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; 66th 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: -0.8%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.88; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.25; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.3%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.4% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 92.4% of revenue deployed · 91.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 24 of 24 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $22.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $217K · 31 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $387K reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 33 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 48/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.