Sow Good Now

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
830997543
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Downingtown, PA, USA
Phone
2158202450
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development – Citizenship

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$357,048
Expenses
$302,329
Assets
$236,772
Liabilities
$85,514

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARY FISCHER-NASSIB CAP (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARY FISCHER-NASSIB CAP (CEO): $64,900 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Sow good now develops the next generation of philanthropic leaders by using sports as a vehicle to teach young people to share their time, talent, treasure, and ties. Through partnerships with schools, colleges, athletic teams, and community organizations, the organization equips student-athletes to lead meaningful service experiences that strengthen communities while developing lifelong habits of generosity and civic engagement.

What it reported doing in 2025

During 2025, sow good now expanded its signature giveback program by partnering with middle school, high school, collegiate, and community athletic organizations throughout the greater philadelphia region. The organization partnered with 16 youth-serving organizations and engaged more than 950 student-athletes in giveback events that combined sports instruction, mentorship, leadership development, and community service.student-athletes planned and led giveback experiences that provided sports clinics, mentoring opportunities, philanthropy education, and community engagement activities benefiting youth throughout the region. Through these experiences, participants developed leadership skills while learning the value of volunteerism, teamwork, and civic responsibility.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.2%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 82.4%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $20.83 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 15.3%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.78; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.36; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.5%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 27.5% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 23.6% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.2% of revenue deployed · 82.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 22 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $249K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $65K · 22 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.