The Georgia Association of the American Institute of Architects Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237082160
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
4042220099
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$756,948
Expenses
$713,161
Assets
$1,141,683
Liabilities
$264,210

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • David Southerland (Executive Director)
  • Sophia Tarkhan (President)
  • Ralph Raymond (Past President)
  • Todd Dolson (President Elect)

Highest reported compensation

  • David Southerland (Executive Director): $162,583 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

AIA Georgia promotes the profession of architecture through fellowship, advocacy, communications and education. The association supports the activities of four local chapters: Atlanta, Middle Georgia, Savannah, and Golden Isles. Additionally, three chapters that used to be supported by the association, are now "sections" under AIA Georgia, and no longer stand-alone 501c(6) organizations. Their activities are treated as programs on the AIA Georgia financial statements. AIA Georgia serves as THE VOICE OF THE ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSION AT THE STATE LEGISLATURE, provides continuing education through its various events and conferences, celebrates design through its annual design awards program, and supports members seeking elevation to Fellowship, or other seeking national recognition through other awards categories.

What it reported doing in 2024

Advocacy: aia Georgia is the voice of the architectural profession at the state legislature, and various executive departments (professional liscensing, fire codes, building codes, historic preservation). In 2024, we responded to legislative issues that affected the health, safety and welfare of the general public in relation to the built environment and held informational sessions educating our membership on the political process.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 88% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.8%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.6; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.8%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $163K · 14 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 11 of 12 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 52/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.