Agri-business Education Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943102115
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020, Form 990-EZ 2012
Location
Salem, OR, USA
Phone
9716000466
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$157,838
Expenses
$82,362
Assets
$266,354
Liabilities
$22,195

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JEANNE CARVER (PRESIDENT)
  • MALLORY PHELAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MALLORY PHELAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $70,853 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the agri-business educational corporation is to fund programs that support the engagement of agriculture, while breaking down some of the barriers that divide urban and rural Oregon.

What it reported doing in 2020

Agri-business educational corporation supports its mission through the following public outreach and education programs.adopt-a-farmer- pairing middle school science programs with farms or ranches for the entire academic year gives students the opportunity to see, hear, touch, smell, and taste what life is like on the farm. The program includes field trips and classroom activities facilitated by the farmer/rancher throughout the academic year.road crop signs- signs help travelers identify what crop is growing or the breed that is being raised in fields along roadways.i am Oregon agriculture- a multimedia effort highlighting the fact that 98 percent of Oregon's producers are family farms.ag fest- annually the last weekend in april, Oregon ag fest is an activity-filled festival.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 81% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 72% for direct work, and 28% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 46.1%; rating input score 46
  • Program expense ratio: 88.4%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 47.8%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.23; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 25.5%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.4% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 46.1% of revenue deployed · 88.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $73K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $71K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2013 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 46/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.