Seed2Harvest Community Outreach
Legal name: Seed 2 Harvest Community Outreach - Prairie View
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 842343578
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2024–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Aug 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2023
- Location
- Prairie View, TX, US
- Phone
- (832) 441-0424
- Rating
- 70
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community Improvement, Capacity Building N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $70,082
- Expenses
- $44,969
- Assets
- $31,826
- Liabilities
- $8,157
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
People named in this filing
- TAANI FOLLIS (CHAIRMAN/PRE)
- DAVID RICKS (SECRETARY)
- STEPHEN SEGURA (TREASURER)
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
Seed2Harvest is a Christ-centered 501c3 nonprofit serving at-risk students at PVAMU.
What it reported doing in 2024
The organizations management and general administration ensures effective governance, compliance, and stewardship of resources. Activities include financial oversight, strategic planning, staff development, donor reporting and compliance with federal and state nonprofit regulations. These functions support the organizations mission indirectly by maintaining accountability, transparency, and operational integrity, enabling the delivery of high-impact programs to participants and the community.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 68% for direct work, and 32% for member benefits.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 68
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 59
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 55.8%; rating input score 56
- Program expense ratio: 86.9%; rating input score 87
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 35.8%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.71; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 12; 12th 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
- What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 55.8% of revenue deployed · 86.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $39K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.