Indiana Agricultural Law Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510489857
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Indianapolis, IN, USA
Phone
3176927851
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy

Reported finances

Revenue
$245,394
Expenses
$176,451
Assets
$1,646,371
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Randall Kron (President)
  • Kendell Culp (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Mark Sigler resigned effective 12-1 (Treasurer): $438,145 total reported compensation
  • Megan Ritter effective 12-15-2025 (Treasurer): $266,957 total reported compensation
  • Mark Thornburg (Secretary): $244,436 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

See Schedule O

What it reported doing in 2025

INAgLaw creates and supports educational programs that address legal issues facing farmers. Estate and succession planning impacts every farm in the state of IN. In July 2025, INAgLaw held the 12th installment of its annual series Estate Succession Planning for the Family Farm Also, INAgLaw held its 2nd workshop on family farm succession. Seven multi generation Indiana farm families attended an in-person event facilitated by an industry expert and left with a formalized plan to assist in the succession of their farm. INAgLaw coordinated the 4th installment of the Ag Planning and Zoning School and updated the Ag Zoning Guide. INAgLaw coordinated the 2nd annual Agricultural Contracting program highlighting the different types of contracts and their role in production agriculture. CLE credits were offered to attorneys attending the programs with the exception of the succession workshop. INAgLaw also facilitated numerous telephone calls and Zoom meetings on agricultural law issues and continues to help farmers find attorneys to represent their interests when necessary.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 68
  • Sustainability: 72
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.9%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 54.7%; rating input score 55
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.73 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 28.1%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.33; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 302.4%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.9% of revenue deployed · 54.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 13 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $96K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $438K · 21 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 55/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.