Agriculture & Food Systems Institute
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 521323610
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Washington, DC, USA
- Phone
- 2028927257
- Rating
- 72
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Management & Technical Assistance
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,499,272
- Expenses
- $1,767,788
- Assets
- $4,794,085
- Liabilities
- $534,188
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- DR ANDREW ROBERTS (CHIEF EXECUT): $262,033 total reported compensation
- KAREN HOKANSON (SENIOR MANAG): $159,172 total reported compensation
- DR STEPHANIE CARTER (SENIOR MANAG): $124,029 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The agriculture & food systems institute (afsi) is a non-profit organization that advances and disseminates science for public benefit. Our mission is to achieve safe and sustainable agri-food systems by providing thought leadership and creating a collaborative environment that fosters scientific innovation across disciplines, sectors, and geographies.
What it reported doing in 2024
In 2024, afsi continued its strong programs in support of agricultural innovation and regulation for public benefit. Highlights and accomplishments for the year include: as part of the south asia biosafety program (sabp), afsi organized the "conference on genome editing for agriculture in bangladesh" on february 11, 2024 in dhaka to raise awareness about the publication of the "standard operating procedures (sop) for research and release of genome edited plants of categories sdn-1 and sdn-2,2023," attracting 129 in-person attendees. Afsi organized the workshop "bolstering asean food security through partnership and cooperation on agricultural biotechnology" in jakarta, indonesia on march 4-6, 2024, which was hosted by the asean secretariat and supported by the united states department of agriculture (usda) and the department of state. All 11 asean member and observer states were represented, with 44 total participants sharing their expertise and exchanging ideas. Supported by a grant from the usda foreign agricultural service (fas) emerging markets program (emp), afsi organized the "environmental risk assessment workshop: non-target organism testing," in cooperation with the usda agricultural research service (ars), Iowa state university, and corteva agriscience, on june 24-28, 2024, for eight participants from the USA, indonesia, nigeria, and kenya. Afsi implemented the "workshop on moving forward on agricultural biotechnology through continuing efforts on regulatory cooperation in apec" on august 14, 2024 in trujillo, peru, prior to the apec hlpdab plenary meeting. The full-day in-person event welcomed over 40 participants, representing canada, chinese taipei, indonesia, japan, the republic of korea, malaysia, mexico, peru, the philippines, russia, thailand, vietnam, and the USA. During the event, a draft of the policy approaches document for regulatory cooperation on agricultural biotechnology (pad)was presented to participants, along with its companion website (biotechpolicyportal.org), both of which afsi will continue to work on in 2025. Afsi organized on the fourth training event in the workshop series "gene edited plants: context and communication for plant breeding innovation" on december 10-11, 2024 in daejeon, south korea. Spanning two days, "enabling regulatory environment for genome editing in agriculture in south korea: opportunities & possibilities" brought together a diverse set of 52 stakeholders working on agricultural biotechnology in south korea, including scientists and experts from the public and private sectors.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and program spending has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 79
- Transparency & Controls: 67
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 32
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 93.7%; rating input score 94
- Program expense ratio: 79%; rating input score 79
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
- 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: Pass
- May require repayment: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -17.9%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.71; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 30.8%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -3.5% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -5.1% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -7.9% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 93.7% of revenue deployed · 79% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $262K · 10 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.