Winners Drink Milk

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
351651292
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Indianapolis, IN, US
Phone
317-842-3060
Rating confidence
Limited

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,241,544
Expenses
$3,946,446
Assets
$2,990,982
Liabilities
$743,071

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RICHARD THOMAS (PRESIDENT)
  • JANET DAGUE (VICE-PRESIDENT)
  • JENNIFER BROWNING (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • JENNIFER BROWNING (CEO): $158,214 total reported compensation
  • SOMULA SCHWOEPPE (DIRECTOR): $9,220 total reported compensation
  • TIMOTHY HAYNES (TREASURER): $3,690 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To promote public awareness as to the value of milk and its products.

What it reported doing in 2024

Adai, a not-for-profit corporation, promotes the demand, sale and consumption of cows' milk and milk products and enhances the image of the dairy industry in Indiana. Adai is responsible for increasing demand for dairy products through nutrition education and marketing, advertising and promotion programs on behalf of Indiana's dairy producers. Adai's professional staff of dietitians, nutrition educators, and communications professionals, provide timely, scientifically sound nutrition information to the media, physicians, dietitians, nurses, educators, consumer leaders and others concerned about fostering a healthier society. Adai is known for award winning marketing programs including winners drink milk and every single day adai marketing programs and services reaches their audience.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 98% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 48
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 1st 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 20.7%; rating input score 21; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

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: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.76; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.25; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.7%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 12 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $158K · 13 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 13 of 15 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 21/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 39/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 55/100.