Illinois Council on Best Management Practices

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
371377677
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2022
Forms available
Form 990 2022
Location
Springfield, IL, USA
Rating
42
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Agricultural Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$14,145
Expenses
$141,998
Assets
$257,114
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TAMMY HALTERMAN (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • PAT BANE (SECRETARY)
  • JASON BUNTING (TREASURER)
  • BETSY EMERICK (VICE PRESIDE)

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 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Assist and encourage adoption of best management practices (bmps) to protect and improve water quality in Illinois. The goals include identifying and developing effective, environmentally-sound, and economical bmps for production agriculture; increasing the adoption of bmps through education, information transfer, research, demonstration, and incentive/recognition programs; and assisting and/or facilitating the technical and financial resources needed to carry out this mission

What it reported doing in 2022

The association has provided funding for a statewide ag retail survey with data from survey to be shared with the Illinois department of agriculture. The survey will provide an analysis of fertilizer use and application on farms throughout the state.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 65% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
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: 90
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 0

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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -903.9%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.81; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -42.2% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -12.1% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 10 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2013 to 2022
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.