Seasons Village Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
843639725
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2021
Location
Raleigh, NC, USA
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$160,900
Expenses
$162,679
Assets
$637,053
Liabilities
$31,258

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kimberly Winborne (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kimberly Winborne (Executive Director): $58,333 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Seasons Village partners with single mothers and their children to foster a strong foundation for intergenerational prosperity. Pathways out of poverty are built for the lowest-income residents breaking the cycle of intergenerational poverty. Seasons Village raises awareness on the issues low-resourced single mothers and their families face and partners with the broader community to equip these women to lead from a place of strength. Investments in the postsecondary success of single mothers not only open opportunities for higher-paying jobs economic security and family stability but also promote leaders in the community across generations.

What it reported doing in 2024

Seasons Villages Pathways to Prosperity P2P is a two-and-a-half-year program providing a network of resources and support to improve outcomes for families through opening doors for education supporting family well-being and promoting economic prosperity. We support highly motivated single mother scholars age 18 or above earning less than 60% AMI who have a high school diploma or GED and desire a brighter future for themselves and their children through pursuing a post-secondary degree or certifications with labor market value. Investing in the lives of single mothers directly impacts the trajectory of the next generation of our community. Education remains the greatest lever for economic mobility and supportive relationships encourage our resilient scholars to achieve their educational goals.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 54% for direct work, and 46% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 91
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.3%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 74.5%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $19.47 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 81.1%; rating input score 81; 49th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.1%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.92; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 35.9%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 61.4% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 41.5% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76.3% of revenue deployed · 74.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $121K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $58K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 43 of 44 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.