Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237357226
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
4048819980
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,521,401
Expenses
$2,998,467
Assets
$18,589,501
Liabilities
$428,776

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

Leadership & pay

39 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • W WRIGHT MITCHELL (PRESIDENT &)

Highest reported compensation

  • W WRIGHT MITCHELL (PRESIDENT &): $241,325 total reported compensation
  • DANA PONDER (CFO): $120,227 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 trust works for the preservation and revitalization of Georgia's diverse historic resources and advocates for their appreciation, protection, and use.

What it reported doing in 2024

The trust operates a revolving fund used to purchase, stabilize, and/or rehabilitate, and then resell historic properties to preservation-minded buyers. In july 2024, the trust purchased the first national bank building in louisville, goergia. Efforts are underway to stabilize the structure by replacing the roof and investing in potential uses for the historic structure. To further the mission of protection, the organization places and administers eighty-two preservation easements on sites throughout the state of Georgia which are vital for preserving historic properties and ensuring their future protection. The newest addition to the program is park street united methodist church in atlanta's west end. This gothic revival style building, now owned by clark atlanta university, houses its art and music departments. Annually, the trust publishes and promotes a list of historic sites threatened by demolition, neglect, lack of maintenance, or inappropriate development called places in peril. The intention is to encourage owners to preserve these places. In 2024, the places in peril porgram achieved significant milestones. The lee street bridge project in americus was redesigned with gdot and local partners, preserving the historic calvary episcopal church and its district. Additionally, the endangered building at 229 auburn street in atlanta's sweet auburn district is set for redevelopment, with advocates striving to ensure its rehabilitiation to maintain the area's national significance. The trust awarded 110,000 in grants to fourteen historic sites and awarded two fellowships totaling 6,850 during this fiscal year. Projects include the exterior restoration of the desoto theatre in rome, revitalization of savannah gray brick at massie school, repairs to the fresh air home pavilion on tybee island and window restoration at the thomasville center for the arts. The Georgia trust also presents preservation awards annually which recognize excellence in preservation, restoration, and stewardship. During the fiscal year, twenty-six awards were given including eleven for excellence in rehabilitation, two for excellence in stewardship, and two for excellence in restoration, among others. The trust continues to spearhead efforts to expand tax credit legislation. During the fiscal year, the Georgia trust began the process to present a bill to the Georgia legislature to increase the annual cap for commercial hrtc projects. In addition, an advocacy toolkit was developed to provide enhanced education for advocates of endangered historic sites. The toolkit includes techniques to identify historc sites, strategies for building support, how to engage with elected officials, undertanding designations, and funding opportunities. This resource promotes early advocacy to safeguard Georgia's historic resources and prevents demolition and inappropriate development.

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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 86.4%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.89 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 24th 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: 74.3%; rating input score 74; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 14.9%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.2; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.1%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82% of revenue deployed · 86.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 37 of 37 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $241K · 39 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 38 of 39 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 8 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 43/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.