Mosaic Georgia Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581762829
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lawrenceville, GA, USA
Phone
7704979122
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Rape Victim Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,826,395
Expenses
$3,432,291
Assets
$1,773,830
Liabilities
$479,924

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Marine Sampanes Peed (Executive Dir.): $136,332 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Mosaic Georgia's mission is to take action and guide change for the safety, health, and justice of children and adults impacted by sexual violence. It provides a coordinated, trauma-informed response, including crisis services, medical forensic exams, child forensic interviews, advocacy, legal assistance, therapy, and prevention in Gwinnett County, Georgia.

What it reported doing in 2024

Crisis Response, Victim Advocacy & Child Protection: In 2024, Mosaic Georgia conducted 554 child forensic interviews in collaboration with the Gwinnett County Multidisciplinary Team (MDT). The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (CSEC) Advocacy Program received 52 referrals for 47 youth; 36 were confirmed as commercially sexually exploited and 11 confirmed not trafficked. At DFCS 's Grace 's Place facility, the Organization served 22 youth (2 confirmed not trafficked). Services included safety planning, RYSE (Restoring Youth and Sexual Exploitation) goal plans, CSE-IT screening, biopsychosocial assessment, one-on-one delivery of the Ending the Game curriculum, assistance with removal of online child sexual abuse material (CSAM), and support for caregivers when a youth is missing. Long-term case management and coordination with law enforcement and child-welfare partners promote safety and stability for survivors and families. Advocates answered 1,087 crisis calls and provided on-scene response, hospital accompaniment, safety planning, and systems navigation for survivors of sexual violence and their families. The team ensured victim rights notification, legal referrals, and linkage to therapy and support services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 73% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.9%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 82%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $32.12 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 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: NotApplicable
    • 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: 10.3%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.52; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.1% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.9% of revenue deployed · 82% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 7 filed program accomplishments · $2.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $136K · 12 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $142K reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.