Seeding Labs
Legal name: Seeding Labs a Non-profit Corporation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 108267613
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Aug 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Boston, MA, USA
- Phone
- +1.617.500.3014
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Research Institutes and Public Policy Analysis
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,454,637
- Expenses
- $3,563,606
- Assets
- $5,500,631
- Liabilities
- $72,592
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MELISSA WU (PRESIDENT & CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- MELISSA WU (PRESIDENT & CEO): $137,408 total reported compensation
- DAVID QUALTER (ACTING CFO): $113,716 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Seeding Labs empowers scientists in developing countries with the tools and training they need to conduct world-class research and education.
What it reported doing in 2024
Seeding labs leverages its network of 250+ donors (including equipment manufacturers, life science companies, universities, and individual)s to significantly increase access to laboratory equipment and supplies for scientists and university students in developing countries. In 2024, seeding labs supported 15 institutions across 8 countries with more than 33 tons oflaboratory equipment and supplies. Since 2003, 116 institutions have received equipment from seeding labs with a fair market value of $15.3m, benefitting researchers and students across 42 developing countries.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 85% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 69% of its reported program spending out as 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 85
- Transparency & Controls: 69
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 42
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 91%; rating input score 91
- Program expense ratio: 88.2%; rating input score 88
- Fundraising efficiency: $12.41 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Limited
- Conducts field audits: Limited
- May suspend future funding: Limited
- Requires financial reports: Limited
- Conducts site visits: Limited
- Requires grant agreements: Limited
- May require repayment: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 73.3%; rating input score 73; 19th 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: -3.2%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.54; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 7%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 17.8% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 91% of revenue deployed · 88.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $137K · 13 people listed
- Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 45/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 41/100.