Project South Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581956686
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
4046220602
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,843,652
Expenses
$6,516,292
Assets
$16,626,763
Liabilities
$3,308,318

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HOWARD EMERY WRIGHT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • HOWARD EMERY WRIGHT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $101,500 total reported compensation
  • CAROLYN PITTMAN (VICE CHAIR): $101,500 total reported compensation
  • AZADEH SHAHSHAHANI (EMPLOYEE): $101,500 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Project souths mission is to build the foundation for successful broad-based social justice movements. Project south, inc. Works directly with communities pushed forward by conditions of poverty and racism in order to strengthen leadership for community organizing on critical frontlines of economic, racial, and social justice.

What it reported doing in 2024

I) Brownsville Future Project: Project South organizes locally in our South Atlanta neighborhoods to defend against gentrification, structural racism and other forms of oppression while building grassroots resident and youth power to transform our neighborhood towards a vision of economic and racial justice. (ii) Countering State Repression: Project South develops legal and advocacy projects and programs to research state surveillance attempts; investigate Georgia detention centers, and protect fundamental rights for Black, Muslim, and migrant populations. (iii) Fiscal Sponsorships: Provided wrap-around strategic supports, fiscal sponsorships, fellowships, workshops, and facilitation consults with predominantly Black-led and frontline organizations and groups doing extraordinary work to advance social, economic, gender, and ecological justice.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 79% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 70% for direct work, 29% for grants, and 1% for affiliated organizations.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 54
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.2%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 70.7%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.43 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 90.5%; rating input score 91; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 57.1%; rating input score 57; 9th 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: 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -34.5%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.55; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.9%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 22% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 19.1% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 29.6% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.2% of revenue deployed · 70.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $102K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 34 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 14 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Independent voting board scored 57/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.