Iowa Farm Bureau

Legal name: Iowa Farm Bureau Federation D/b/a Shelby County Farm Bureau

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
420685000
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2021
Location
West Des Moines, IA, US
Phone
1-515-225-5400
Rating confidence
Limited

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$148,716
Expenses
$122,787
Assets
$1,397,453
Liabilities
$3,468

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JASON PETERSEN (PRESIDENT)
  • GABE FERRY (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • GAYLEN SMITH (DIRECTOR): $136 total reported compensation
  • ALAN KENKEL (DIRECTOR): $108 total reported compensation
  • MIKE FARA (DIRECTOR): $64 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To create a vibrant future for agriculture, farm families and their communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Public policy: shelby county farm bureau is very active in their policy development and policy implementation activities. Opinionnaires were filled out by members prior to the annual meeting dealing with local, state and national issues. Proposed resolutions are presented at a board meeting in july with fb members invited to be debated and amended. Adopted resolutions are supported by the voting delegate at the state policy conference. A regional board meeting is held. The purpose of this meeting is to surface county issues. County supervisors and county engineer attend a board meeting in the spring to talk about the budget and subject matters pertaining to the county. Board members regularly attend and host legislative coffees and other meetings that involve issues with shelby county. Voting delegate attended fb events and talked with senators and representatives. Board members attend fb days at the capitol. State representatives attended local fb annual meeting and fall regional meeting to discuss current legislative issues.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 47.8%; rating input score 48; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 17.4%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.38; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.4%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 29.4% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $136 · 18 people listed
  • Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 48/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.