Iowa Cooperative Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
421305677
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Ames, IA, USA
Phone
5152922667
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$56,190
Expenses
$35,000
Assets
$495,396
Liabilities
$30,000

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TAYLOR JANS (PRESIDENT)
  • JASON BERKLAND (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DR BOBBY MARTENS (STAFF LIAISON): $324,321 total reported compensation
  • BRIAN LARSEN (DIRECTOR): $1,200 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Iowa cooperative foundation is organized for charitable, scientific and education purposes. The foundation is organized, and will be operated by, exclusively for the benefit of, to perform the functions of, or to carry out the charitable purpose of the Iowa institute for cooperatives, an Iowa nonprofit corporation.

What it reported doing in 2025

Priority for work conducted by or supported by the foundation shall be given to rural cooperative development with emphasis on new or young companies. Activities may include research and education about rural needs, assistance in creating cooperatives when appropriate and training programs for management and directors. Priorty will also be given to providng youth scholarships to youths living in rural communities.donated services, valued at $1,798, were provided by the Iowa institute for cooperatives during the 2025 tax year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 56
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 62
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.2%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 22nd 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: 35.7%; rating input score 36; 47th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 37.7%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 14.15; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 94.4%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.9% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 78.2% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $35K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $324K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 15 of 16 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 36/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.