Gwinnett Tech Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
582106879
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lawrenceville, GA, USA
Phone
6782266955
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,013,881
Expenses
$960,805
Assets
$9,946,192
Liabilities
$120,475

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DARCIE JOHNSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DARCIE JOHNSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $151,604 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 gwinnett tech foundation exists for the sole purpose of helping gwinnett technical college and its students succeed through financial support including scholarships.

What it reported doing in 2024

The foundation's exempt purpose is to generate and provide additional funds for the support of the students, programs and services of gwinnett technical college in order to help the college achieve its stated goals and objectives. Gwinnett technical college is a two-year technical school unit of the technical college system of Georgia with campuses in lawrenceville and alpharetta, Georgia that offers over 140 programs of study for over 12,000 enrolled students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 63% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 99% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 85%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $20.51 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.2%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 10.35; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.8%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.3% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.6% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 85% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $817K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $152K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 59/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 51/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.