The Georgia Academy for Economic

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
582472815
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2017, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Adel, GA, USA
Phone
9123894196
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Reported finances

Revenue
$100,602
Expenses
$75,841
Assets
$615,527
Liabilities
$5,349

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

People named in this filing

  • GRANT CAGLE (BOARD MEMBER)
  • ELYSE DAVIS (VICE CHAIR)
  • GREG DOZIER (BOARD MEMBER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The Georgia academy for economic development is organized for the purpose of assiting Georgia's leaders in their economic development efforts by providing an understanding of the critical processes, strategies, and solutions involved in improving their community and achieving economic success in today's global economy. The organization also supports those activities believed to be beneficial to the community and opposes those which might be detrimental.

What it reported doing in 2024

These amounts represent various program service expenses resulting from activities carried on in providing to Georgia's leaders an understanding of the processes, strategies, and solutions involved in improving their community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 88% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 46
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 43%; rating input score 43
  • Program expense ratio: 64.9%; rating input score 65
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 24.6%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.12; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -14.7% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.6% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 43% of revenue deployed · 64.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $49K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 43/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.