Georgia Vocational Solutions Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 861831153
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
- Location
- Atlanta, GA, USA
- Phone
- 4048005349
- Rating
- 85
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Human Service Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $131,516
- Expenses
- $97,787
- Assets
- $85,976
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
1 person listed
Executive titles in this filing
- TONY GRIFFIN (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- TONY GRIFFIN (PRESIDENT)
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
Gvs's sole focus is to train, employ, and empower disadvantaged workers by providing vocational skills training and job readiness education. This program assist prior felons with training and employment opportunities for the sole purposes of reducing recidivism.
What it reported doing in 2025
Through the generous support of the powell foundation gvs expanded its workforce development and vocational training operations to better serve underserved and justice-impacted individuals throughout metro atlanta. Funding supported the growth of the organizations training center vocational equipment classroom operations and direct workforce readiness programming. Participants received industry-recognized certifications and hands-on training in areas such as forklift operations flagger certification job readiness workplace safety and employability skills. The program also provided case management support employment referrals and wraparound services designed to improve long-term job retention and economic stability for program participants.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 77% 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 85
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 53
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 75.6%; rating input score 76
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 25.6%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.88; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 55%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 75.6% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $99K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
- Consistency: 4 of 6 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- 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.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part I part ii net assets crosscheck did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.