Good Soil Edc Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
990625536
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Dallas, TX, USA
Phone
4696235990
Rating
46
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,135,636
Expenses
$3,874,784
Assets
$275,508
Liabilities
$15,510

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DARWIN BRUCE (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • NICOLE FAIN (SR DIRECTOR/MANAGER): $163,833 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Provide educational resources for minority, indigenous or otherwise under resourced entrepreneurs. This will be done through an online platform where individuals can access training materials, mentorship, and other resources that have historically been difficult for these communities to access.

What it reported doing in 2024

Good soil hq is a t.d. Jakes enterprises project app (ios & android). App is designed to connect entrepreneurs with resources and opportunities to foster business growth and generational wealth, with a goal of supporting a million businesses in a decade. Self-paced courses, mentorship, daily discussions, video mastermind sessions, special offers from suppliers and funders. App brings you a community to support your business growth. There are 3 membership levels: impact (free), grow (paid), & scale (invite). App is continuing to grow by providing tangible things that are helping entrepreneurs grow. Have 27,055 members

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 86% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 6
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59.3%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 63.3%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.93 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.3%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.07; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.2%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

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

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59.3% of revenue deployed · 63.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $2.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $164K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $800K reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 59/100.