Maryland Grain Producers Utilization Board Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521752000
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chester, MD, USA
Phone
4432628491
Rating
48
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,030,947
Expenses
$1,268,978
Assets
$1,818,736
Liabilities
$-3,750

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STEVE ERNST (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • LINDSAY THOMPSON (EXECUTIVE DI)
  • STEVE ERNST (PRESIDENT)
  • MATTHEW MORRIS (VICE PRESIDE)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The Maryland grain producers utilization board was established in 1991. It's mission is to increase the profitability of Maryland grain production and to improve public understanding of agriculture using checkoff investments to support promotion, education, and research resulting in greater utilization of grain.

What it reported doing in 2024

Maryland grain producers utilization board, inc. (mgpub) provides grants to conduct research, market development, and education to expand the utilization and profitability of grain production. Mgpub uses grant funds to expand the use of ethanol. Mgpub conducts its programs and public relations activities to expand the use of grains. Mgpub is required to return checkoff funds collected to any grain producers who request a refund. A grain producer may request to have their checkoff funds allocated to the Maryland grain producers association for membership in that association (50 for one year or 125 for three years), so they can receive educational updates on the checkoff program.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 97% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.1%; rating input score 99; 48th 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: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -23.1%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.43; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 22 people listed
  • Consistency: 10 of 12 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 21 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 20 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.