Nana Grants Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
814626337
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
7708453663
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$550,938
Expenses
$820,343
Assets
$1,494,337
Liabilities
$2,420

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Erica Stephens (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Erica Stephens (Executive Director): $108,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Cover 100% childcare cost through graduation for low-income student mothers attending an accredited college or university in GA. Our mission is to support single mothers pursing post-secondary education while ensuring their children receive quality early childhood education.

What it reported doing in 2025

Each Nana Grant covers 100% of the cost of childcare through graduation for low-income student mothers attending an accredited college or university in Georgia. Nana Grants supported 68 families in 2025 and paid for more than 2300 weeks of childcare. In 2025, our students maintained a 3.24 Average GPA. We celebrated 13 Degrees Earned/Graduations. As of December 31, 2025, seven technical/vocational students,20 associates degree students and 17 bachelors degree students were enrolled in our program. Nana Grants has an 82% graduation/persistency rate.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 79% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 88.2%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.05 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 24; 24th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -48.9%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.82; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.2%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24.7% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 25.6% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 42.1% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 88.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $724K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $108K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 24/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.