Hancock County Farm Bureau

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
370667474
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Carthage, IL, USA
Phone
2173573141
Rating
46
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$252,789
Expenses
$164,735
Assets
$1,092,773
Liabilities
$7,140

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRYAN STEVENS (President)
  • TED KNORR (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • BRYAN STEVENS (President)
  • TED KNORR (Vice President)
  • MATTHEW STARR (Secretary)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Committed to promoting agriculture for our members and communities through leadership, involvement, and education.

What it reported doing in 2024

Informational seminars and programs - host many different programs throughout the county in many ag-related topics. The farm bureau provides informational seminars to the members about farming practices. Issues regarding agriculture, and much more to keep the farmers businesses in compliance with regulations. The board presents issues to representing legislators. They use seminars to simply inform the public and members. The types of seminars conducted include marketing, animal production, and river issue seminars.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and 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: 75
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 60

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: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 34.8%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.63; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 21 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 21 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 16 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes related organizations
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Independent members within voting members 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 48/100.