Cattle Enhancement Board Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 812582655
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2018–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020
- Location
- Kissimmee, FL, USA
- Phone
- 4078466221
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,117,112
- Expenses
- $1,127,071
- Assets
- $545,021
- Liabilities
- $531,140
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
19 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- DR SAQIB MUKHTAR (DIRECTOR): $266,035 total reported compensation
- JIM HANDLEY (COO UNTIL 4/16/2025): $170,447 total reported compensation
- DUSTY HOLLEY (COO AS OF 4/16/2025): $111,750 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 cattle enhancement board is organized exclusively to promote research, education and scientific purposes including the promotion of research, education and extension at, or for the benefit of, the institute of food and agricultural sciences (ifas) at the university of Florida on issues related to the Florida cattle industry, including, but not limited to production, disease prevention, forage development, and genetic research and technology.
What it reported doing in 2024
The board promotes research, education and extension for the institute of food and agricultural sciences (ifas) on issues relating to the Florida cattle industry, including production, disease prevention, forage development, and genetic research and technology. Funded through state appropriations since its inception in 2016, the Florida cattle enhancement board has funded over $5.2 million in research projects, education and extension efforts at the university of Florida.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 99% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 73% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 80
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 86
- Sustainability: 28
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 90.3%; rating input score 90
- Program expense ratio: 89.4%; rating input score 89
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: 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: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Limited
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -0.9%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.48; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.97; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 9%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 14.6% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 15.6% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 90.3% of revenue deployed · 89.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 15 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $266K · 19 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $275K reported
- Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 3 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 33/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.