Georgia Police K-9 Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
814161458
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2018
Location
Statesboro, GA, USA
Phone
9126872410
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$370,061
Expenses
$262,240
Assets
$818,682
Liabilities
$32,557

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHAD PARRISH (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • KYLE BRILEY (BOARD MEMBER)
  • PHIL RITCHEY (VICE PRESIDE)
  • MARCI VIERS (SECRETARY)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To assist active and retired law enforcement k9s.

What it reported doing in 2025

To raise awareness within the state and the local communities of the contribution of the police k9 and how they save lives and make our communities safer. To protect these valuable assets and friends with safety equipment especially bullet-proof vests and heat alarm systems. To educate through annually certifying, and providing advanced training and tools to allow the k-9 teams to perform at optimum levels for protection of citizens of Georgia. To provide retirement support (food and medical care) for retired law enforcement k-9s in the absence of state or local retirement benefits (food, medical care) for the four legged k9 officer. In addition we aim to have local governments implement financial assistance for 5 years for retired k9s.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% 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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 70
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 49.5%; rating input score 50
  • Program expense ratio: 74.1%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $24.7 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Fail
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 29.1%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.12; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.2% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.3% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 29% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 49.5% of revenue deployed · 74.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $194K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.