Illinois Farm Bureau

Legal name: Illinois Agricultural Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
370809856
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Bloomington, IL, USA
Phone
3095572488
Rating
38
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$73,899,983
Expenses
$73,856,956
Assets
$82,993,301
Liabilities
$21,379,238

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

Leadership & pay

47 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Brian Duncan (President)
  • Evan Hultine (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jennifer Vance (General Counsel): $1,332,415 total reported compensation
  • Alan Dodds (VP Fin. & Treas): $754,154 total reported compensation
  • Andrew Bender (Ass't Secretary): $657,378 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 improve the economic well-being of agriculture and enrich the quality of farm family life by educating and disseminating agricultural information to members and others in such areas as finance, economics and governmental policy.

What it reported doing in 2024

General information - Market information, weather, crop conditions, regulatory, financial, organizational and political news on issues of interest to our members is provided through radio broadcasts, posted on our internet website, and through publications. The information assists members in making business decisions, participating in organization events, and their understanding of issues impacting members of our organization.

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

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue has grown recently. 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: 82
  • Accountability: 42
  • Sustainability: 35
  • 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: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 12th 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: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • 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 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.12; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.6%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -19.7% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 7 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 20 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $26.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.3M · 47 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $8.8M reported
  • Consistency: 14 of 16 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 131 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 101 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.