GU272 Descendants Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
825201438
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Phone
2253690568
Rating confidence
Limited
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$88,025
Expenses
$77,226
Assets
$126,387

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Cordella Dee Taylor (Vice President)
  • Travis Thymes (President)
  • Lisa M Williams (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Rochell Sanders Prater (Executive Dir.)
  • Cheryl Hall-Derouen (Trustee)
  • Cordella Dee Taylor (Vice 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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Association? s mission is to support the goals, objectives and aspirations of all Descendants of the GU272, and further to represent the same interest of all other descendants of people enslaved before and after 1838 by the Jesuits of the Maryland Province of the Society of Jesus. The Association shall be, without limitation, an instrument and voice to pursue and address the mutual interest of all descendants through membership recruitment, financial support, public relations, community outreach, talent development, loyalty building, and demonstrated dedication and commitment to the legacy of the GU272 - Jesuit Diaspora.

What it reported doing in 2024

GU272 is dedicated to preserving the memory, commemorating the lives, and restoring the honor of the GU272 enslaved people sold by the Maryland Province Jesuits in 1838 and those who were enslaved before, during, and after the sale by the Society of Jesus.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.3%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.64; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.3% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.