Ifdc

Legal name: International Fertilizer Development Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
630676451
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2022
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2022
Location
Muscle Shoals, AL, USA
Phone
2563816600
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Agricultural Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$60,259,240
Expenses
$60,245,786
Assets
$29,536,258
Liabilities
$29,876,056

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ALBIN HUBSCHER (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • ALBIN HUBSCHER (PRESIDENT & CEO): $475,708 total reported compensation
  • JJ ROBERT GROOT (DIRECTOR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT & PARTNERSHIPS): $336,788 total reported compensation
  • HENDRIK VAN DUIJN (VP, CORPORATE SERVICES): $287,031 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

IFDC's mission is to develop better technologies, increase on-farm productivity, strengthen market systems, and facilitate an enabling environment for smart agricultural policy and knowledge sharing.

What it reported doing in 2022

Research & development program: this program seeks to (1) develop and diffuse technologies that address nutrient management issues and promote advancement of sustainable agricultural intensification; (2) conduct evidence-based policy analyses to support reform processes in multiple dimensions of economic policy: and (3) work to ensure that ifdc captures, documents, analyzes, and disseminates the knowledge generated from all of ifdc's work on increased agricultural productivity.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work 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 the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 44
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.4%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 87.4%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th 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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 0%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.49; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.01; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.1%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.4% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.5% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 31 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 87.4% of revenue deployed · 87.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $52.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $476K · 25 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $130K reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 to 2022
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 24 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.