Seed Programs Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
562092576
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Asheville, NC, USA
Phone
+1 (828) 337-8632
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Agricultural Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$370,095
Expenses
$439,350
Assets
$289,496
Liabilities
$1,705

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • GEORGIA BEASLEY (PROGRAM DIRE): $51,919 total reported compensation
  • BRIAN LOVE (OPERATIONS D): $48,258 total reported compensation
  • ROBYN LOVE (EXEC DIRECTO): $48,258 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Seed Programs International (SPI) was founded on the notion of enabling others to improve their local circumstances.

What it reported doing in 2024

Spi enabled access to 778,000 seed packets to partners in 19 countries during the year. This is enough seed to grow over 27 million fresh vegetable servings containing nutrients that grow healthy minds and bodies, and change the lives of gardeners worldwide. These shipments, combined with appropriate local training, tools, and support, resulted in gardens benefiting more than 50,000 people. These gardens provided life-saving nutrition and income for families in these countries impacted by disaster, armed conflict, and chronic stress and poverty. Spi also collaborates with partners who serve communities in the united states of america. Seed was delivered to seed libraries, schools, community coalitions, churches, and other groups who provide services to people with little access to nutritious food. Programs spi supports in poland and ukraine create school and community gardens to support refugees and IDPs and to provide program participants with a connection to place and community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 70% for direct work, and 30% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 94
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 92.4%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $36.86 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Pass
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 75.7%; rating input score 76; 47th 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -18.7%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.66; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 33.8%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 7 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 92.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $406K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $52K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 29 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.