CAB International

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
980159060
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Wallingford, Oxford, UK
Rating
36
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$55,334,000
Expenses
$55,309,000
Assets
$37,076,168
Liabilities
$106,228,508

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dennis Rangi (Executive Director ID)
  • Daniel Elger (CEO)
  • Neil Macintosh (Executive Director Human resources)

Highest reported compensation

  • Daniel Elger (CEO): $305,000 total reported compensation
  • Dr Ulrich Kuhlmann (Exec Director Global Operations): $275,000 total reported compensation
  • Dennis Rangi (Executive Director ID): $244,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

CABI is a not for profit international organisation that improves peoples lives by providing information and applying scientific expertise to solve problems in agriculture and the environment.

What it reported doing in 2024

PlantwisePlus is a global agricultural program led by CABI that helps smallholder farmers-particularly in low- and lower-middle-income countries-grow safer higher-quality food. It builds sustainable climate-resilient farming systems by reducing crop losses minimizing pesticide use and combating plant health threats.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 93% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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

REVIEW - Most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 54
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 32nd 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: 0%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.67; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.87; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.7%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -63.7% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.8% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $13.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $305K · 17 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.9M reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 40 current checks pass · 12 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes foreign activity and executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ConferencesMeetings column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX DepreciationDepletion column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesManagement column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Interest column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherSalariesAndWages column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PaymentsToAffiliates column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PayrollTaxes column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Travel column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.