Seeding Mercy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
824258625
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2018–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Mesa, AZ, USA
Phone
4809800397
Rating
44
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$18,179
Expenses
$20,199
Assets
$197
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • John Schaumburg (President/Treasurer)
  • Aken Tong (CEO)

People named in this filing

  • John Schaumburg (President/Treasurer)
  • Aken Tong (CEO)
  • Deanne Olivas (Secretary)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Community support for health and education

What it reported doing in 2025

Seeding Mercy is a non-profit organization dedicated to support farming and farmers in South Sudan. We receive both individual donations and grants from corporations. Our primary goal is to increase self-sufficiency and food stability for the farmers we serve. This year we organized a used-clothing drive and filled a 40 foot cargo container. It was sent to South Sudan in March 2025. More than 1000 farmers have been supported by Seeding Mercy during the past 5 years. This year we added solar panel and irrigation to some of our farms.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 4
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 3.7%; rating input score 4
  • Program expense ratio: 3.3%; rating input score 3

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -11.1%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.01; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.9% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 3.7% of revenue deployed · 3.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $664 in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 4/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.