Together As One

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
611993986
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Norcross, GA, USA
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$86,850
Expenses
$13,000
Assets
$107,850
Liabilities
$13,000

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Tasha Anderson (Owner)
  • Nina Anderson (Co Director)
  • Roselyn Gbelly (VIP)

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

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

Overview

Mission

Our youth program is a structured initiative or project designed to engage and support young people in their personal social and educational development. Our programs is organized by our nonprofit organizations and aim to provide young people with opportunities for growth learning and positive experiences. In our Youth programs we will take various forms including after-school programs summer camps mentorship programs leadership development programs sports teams arts and cultural programs and community service initiatives. The goals of our youth program include: 1. Providing a safe and supportive environment for young people to learn and grow. 2. Promoting positive youth development by fostering skills such as communication teamwork leadership and problem-solving. And much much more.

What it reported doing in 2024

We lauched our youth program and helped over 42 young boys and girl. The main accomplishments was bring them together to develop team work and build skills. Also it help the youth with their self esteem. We voluteers from all walks of life Pastors nurses Dr and many more. Our program will be bigger and better in 2025

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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: 82
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

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

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 85%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.3; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.