Georgia Plant Food Educational Society Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581028107
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2021
Location
Commerce, GA, USA
Phone
7065201020
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$199,963
Expenses
$114,085
Assets
$509,605
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRIAN WOOD (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • JON MARSH ANDERSON (DIRECTOR)
  • ROBERT BOUDREAUX (DIRECTOR)
  • MICHAEL CARRUTH (DIRECTOR)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose of the organization is to work with the department of crops and soils of the college of agriculture and environmental sciences at the university of Georgia. This purpose is accomplished through grants, scholarships and contributions to the university of Georgia. The organization also prints and distributes circulars and newsletters dealing with plant nutrient usage and provides certified crop advisor training in conjunction with the university of Georgia. The organization's mail goal is to insure the environmentally safe usage of fertilizers and plant nutrients.

What it reported doing in 2025

The purpose of the organization is to work with the department of crop and soils of the college of agriculture and environmental sciences at the university of Georgia. This purpose is accomplished through grants, scholarships and contributions to the university of Georgia. The organization also prints and distributes circulars and newsletters dealing with plant nutrient usage and provides certified crop advisor training in conjunction with the university of Georgia. The organization's main goal is to insure the environmentally safe usage of fertilizers and plant nutrients.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 69% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 62% for direct work, and 38% for grants.

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: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 45.4%; rating input score 45
  • Program expense ratio: 75.7%; rating input score 76
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 42.9%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.47; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 45.4% of revenue deployed · 75.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 21 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 45/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.