Institute for Feed Education and Research Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
264719856
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-PF 2013
Location
Arlington, VA, USA
Phone
7035583569
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$545,243
Expenses
$621,831
Assets
$3,064,929
Liabilities
$412,286

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CONSTANCE CULLMAN (PRESIDENT AND CEO)
  • LARA MOODY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CONSTANCE CULLMAN (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $499,365 total reported compensation
  • SARAH NOVAK (SECRETARY): $295,768 total reported compensation
  • LARA MOODY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $254,484 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Ifeeder's mission is to advance understanding and trust in a sustainable animal feed and pet food supply chain through timely research and education.

What it reported doing in 2024

Research investments: ifeeder works with diverse partners from across the animal food and broader food and agricultural sector, along with academia and public institutions, to conduct objective research, education and sustainability projects to inform business leaders and decision-makers about the future of the expanding animal feed and pet food industry. Ifeeder's mission is to advance understanding and trust in a sustainable animal feed and pet food supply chain through timely research and education.through proactive research performed in collaboration with domestic and international academic institutions, governments and stakeholders, ifeeder is helping business leaders make informed decisions about the future of animal agriculture.ifeeder's current research initiatives are focused on: -quantifying supply chain disruptions for vitamin and animo acids relative to the impact on meat, milk and egg production. -providing transparent data, quantifying the numerous ingredients used to feed livestock, poultry, fish and pets in the united states. -advancing sustainability research that will deliver a fuller, more accurate picture of the environmental footprint of feed production throughout its life cycle.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 86% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 98.5%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 87.2%; rating input score 87; 37th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -14%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.93; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.8%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.9% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 98.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $613K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $499K · 15 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 7 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.