International Potato Center
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 237396123
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Lima, Lima, Peru
- Phone
- 511-3496017
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- International Agricultural Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $61,898,141
- Expenses
- $65,243,485
- Assets
- $44,581,381
- Liabilities
- $31,277,132
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
24 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- Simon Heck (Director General): $357,703 total reported compensation
- JOAQUIN LOZANO (ONE CGIAR REGIONAL DIRECTOR LATIN AMERICA & THE CARIBBEAN): $312,639 total reported compensation
- Hugo Campos (DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL, SCIENCE & INNOVATION): $253,538 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To achieve food security, increased well-being, and gender equity for poor people in root and tuber farming and food systems of the developing world, through research and innovation in potato, sweetpotato, and other root and tuber crops.
What it reported doing in 2024
Genetic Innovation: Genebanks, crop breeding and seed systems to underpin rapid adaptation of food and farms to meet goals for poverty reduction, gender equaity, nutrition, climate and environment.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 67% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 71% for direct work, and 29% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 94
- Transparency & Controls: 67
- Accountability: 86
- Sustainability: 20
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 96.7%; rating input score 97
- Program expense ratio: 91.7%; rating input score 92
- Fundraising efficiency: $87.43 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Fail
- Conducts field audits: Fail
- May suspend future funding: Fail
- Requires financial reports: Pass
- Conducts site visits: Fail
- Requires grant agreements: Fail
- May require repayment: Fail
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -5.4%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.68; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.7; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.2%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -2.8% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -1.2% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 11 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 7 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 96.7% of revenue deployed · 91.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $59.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $358K · 24 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 47 of 48 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 25 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 3 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.