Citrus Research and Development Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
264825142
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Lake Alfred, FL, USA
Phone
8639561151
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$105,546,288
Expenses
$105,616,502
Assets
$2,005,706
Liabilities
$1,408,797

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MORGAN MCKENNA (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • RICK DANTZLER (RET CHIEF OP): $177,763 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Citrus research and development foundation, inc. Is a direct support organization for the university of Florida. The foundation reviews, approves, and coordinates research projects focused on developing and delivering solutions to citrus diseases. Funding for programs of the crdf includes proceeds of research box taxes levied on Florida citrus growers. In addition, the foundation also receives legislative funding and in the past has had and continues to seek private donations. Private donors provide important research support for crdf programs. The research management committee (previously, the commercial product delivery committee) works with research partners to insure intellectual property rights are protected and commercial partners for manufacturing and marketing of technology are identified. Programs of the crdf benefit not only citrus growers, but allied industries and the citizens of Florida.

What it reported doing in 2025

Translational work to move research results to solutions for Florida and us citrus growers has increased in importance at crdf as research results are being analyzed and next steps are designed. Crdf has enlisted national experts to assist in selecting which research proposals to fund and in interpreting the results of individual projects and topics, leading to a vision for how field deployment of the research and its adoption by growers can increase yield and quality. Notably, crdf is among few public/private partnerships with government and farmers to conduct both discovery and translational activities at this scale. During the current fiscal year, a wide range of field trials were conducted or funded, bringing potential solutions into focus under real-world grower conditions in Florida.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 99% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th 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; 81st 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; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -0.1%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.02; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.7; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.2%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 17.1% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.8% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -7.2% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $105.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $178K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 8 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.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.