Sego Lily Foundation Dba Zimbabwe Blooms

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474803890
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2022
Location
Jackson, ID, USA
Phone
2083124804
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$296,309
Expenses
$243,694
Assets
$112,385
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Paul H Duncan (Director)
  • Kathy F Duncan (Director)
  • Brigham R Duncan (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The activities of the Sego Lily Foundation are exclusively for charitable purposes under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The activities engaged in to achieve this charitable purpose include the personal solicitation of donations in the area of Jackson, Idaho and from the community within the U.S., to provide resources to individuals and other charitable organizations deemed needy by the board of directors. The primary focus will be to provide relief, give hope to the poor and the needy, and to help provide and encourage education to those of lesser means. This may be local to anywhere in the World. Initially efforts will be focused in Zimbabwe Africa, Guatemala, and Brazil.

What it reported doing in 2024

Sponsored 6 students from Zimbabwe, South Africa, and Guatemala attending school in the United States. While here the organization covered school, living, and medical expenses.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 63% for direct work, and 37% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 12
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.8%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 99.4%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 17.8%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.46; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 29.2% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.8% of revenue deployed · 99.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $242K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.