International Food & Agribusiness Management Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
742585021
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Corvallis, OR, USA
Phone
5416026179
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Agricultural Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$206,827
Expenses
$184,532
Assets
$85,180
Liabilities
$2,964

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kathryn Greenly White (Executive Director)
  • Aidan Connolly (President, Executive)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kathryn Greenly White (Executive Director): $75,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To foster agribusiness talent - identify, nurture and develop the next generation of professionals in agribusiness, and provide structured opportunities for industry to identify and recruit the most talented candidates for careers in agribusiness management. Provide thought leadership on the management of agribusiness - generate leading edge research and insight to provide thought leadership to the agribusiness community, while ensuring curricula and research are focused on critical issues facing the industry today and in the future. Connect academia, government and industry - bring together current and future business, academic and government leaders along with other industry stakeholders to improve the strategic focus, transparency, sustainability.

What it reported doing in 2025

Production of the IFAMR Journal. IFAMR publishes high quality, peer review, scholarly articles on topics related to the practice of management in the food and agribusiness industry. The journal provides managers, researchers and teachers a forum where they can publish and acquire research results, new ideas, applications of new knowledge and discussions of issues important to the worldwide food and agribusiness system. The review is published electronically on this website.

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 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 - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 50.8%; rating input score 51
  • Program expense ratio: 57%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: $136.56 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 10.8%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.46; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 40.6%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -10.9% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -8.9% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 50.8% of revenue deployed · 57% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $105K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $75K · 20 people listed
  • Consistency: 40 of 41 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 51/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.