New Disabled South Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
882606879
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2022, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
6787733097
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,403,105
Expenses
$2,682,665
Assets
$2,083,496
Liabilities
$51,150

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dominic Kelly (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Dominic Kelly (CEO): $137,180 total reported compensation
  • Amanda Miles (CDO): $125,124 total reported compensation
  • Elizabeth Kate Hoffman (Executive Dir.): $119,686 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To improve the lives of disabled people and build strong disability justice and rights movements in the South through research & knowledge building, advocacy & policy change, non-partisan voter engagement, and coalition building.

What it reported doing in 2024

Data & ResearchNDS produces original research and plain-language resources that illuminate the experiences and needs of disabled people in the South. Highlights include the continued growth of the Plain Language Policy Dashboard and a co-published report with Data for Progress, Southern Voters Agree Disabled People Have Inclusivity in Their Local Community but Face Discrimination When It Comes to Interacting With Law Enforcement. Through accessible reports and tools, NDS strengthens public understanding and equips advocates, policymakers, and community members with actionable data to drive change.Advocacy & Policy ChangeNDS advances disability justice through advocacy at the local, state, and regional levels, with priorities centered on poverty and care, criminalization, and democracy. This year, NDS expanded its plain-language policy fact sheets, including Accessible Voting in the South, Funding Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) Waivers in the South, The Electoral Process, and Voting Rights. By translating policy into clear, accessible formats, NDS ensures that disabled Southerners and their allies can more effectively advocate for equitable laws, funding, and systems of support.Voter Engagement & Democratic InclusionNDS works to ensure that disabled people can fully participate in the democratic process. In partnership with New Disabled South Rising (c4), NDS released voting guides for 14 Southern states and a 2024 electoral calendar as part of its Voting in the South initiative. The Disabled Voters Rising: Political Education and Training Series offered seven sessions, including webinars, trainings, and panels to build civic knowledge and confidence among disabled voters. Additional initiatives like Roll to the Polls and the Plain Language Ballot Measures Tool (with Disability Culture Lab) further strengthen democratic inclusion across the South.OrganizingNDS cultivates a regional network of disability justice advocates, organizers, and organizations. Through partnerships with Disability Culture Lab and collaborations with New Disabled South Rising, NDS fosters shared learning, leadership development, and collective care. These relationships deepen solidarity and coordination across the Souths disability and social justice movements.Service Access & Community SupportNDS advocates for investments in home and community-based services (HCBS), Medicaid expansion, and policies that enable disabled people to live with dignity and independence. The Funding HCBS Waivers in the South brief highlights critical gaps in access and offers solutions for more equitable systems of care. Through policy advocacy and mutual aid support, NDS advances a vision of the South where all disabled people have the resources they need to thrive.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 83% 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

SUPPORTED - 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: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.8%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 78.4%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.79 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 80.1%; rating input score 80; 21st 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: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 21.2%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.78; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.6%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 76% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 88.1% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 86.4% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61.8% of revenue deployed · 78.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $137K · 14 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $180K reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.