The United States Sweet Potato Council Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 571326030
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2011
- Location
- Vardaman, MS, USA
- Phone
- 6626287961
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Business and Industry
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $351,069
- Expenses
- $198,310
- Assets
- $224,096
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JASON ABLES (PRESIDENT)
- SARAH ALVERNAZ (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- RANDLE WRIGHT (TREASURER)
- KAY RENTZEL (EXECUTIVE SE)
- TERRIS MATTHEWS (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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Sweet potato council of USA, inc. Provides education for the public and consumers about the health benefits and dietary applications of sweet potatoes. This activity is conducted by the council's members throughout the united states year round. By providing this education, this promotes the economic well-being of the united states sweet potato growers. The council's time is entirely devoted to the promotion and well-being of the industry. This activity is funded by the membership dues and individual sponsorships. The council has also operated under the name of the united states sweet potato council, inc. And is in the process of formally updating their name by filing articles of amendment with the Maryland state department of assessments and taxation.
What it reported doing in 2025
Collaborative research of the industry nationwide, especially in the prime production regions of North Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, California and Alabama, with a goal of educating and increasing consumption of sweet potatoes in american's diets.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 69% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 73% for direct work, 2% for affiliated organizations, and 25% for member benefits.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 63
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 64
- Sustainability: 71
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 55.3%; rating input score 55
- Program expense ratio: 98.3%; rating input score 98
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- 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: 43.5%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.13; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 22.8% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 55.3% of revenue deployed · 98.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $195K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
- Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
- Schedules: 1 filed schedules
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.