Michigan Crop Improvement Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
386093249
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Lansing, MI, USA
Phone
5173323546
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,951,368
Expenses
$1,908,841
Assets
$3,611,060
Liabilities
$183,321

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JEFF MARTUS (PRESIDENT)
  • JEFF DREHER (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • CURREN J PALMER (MANAGER): $188,114 total reported compensation
  • LEE SILER (SEED QUALITY MANAGER): $140,140 total reported compensation
  • JANET POLICELLA (OFFICE MANAGER): $139,873 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 assist the Michigan seed industry by providing: genetic, disease, agronomic, and marketing information, through foundation seed production, field inspection, and lab testing, to facilitate the movement of seed or plant products in local, national, and international markets.

What it reported doing in 2025

Educational scholarships to students in the crop and soil science department at Michigan state university. 12 scholarships were awarded, including 10 scholarships to Michigan state university students and 2 scott judd scholarships to graduating mason high school students who will be attending Michigan state university.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 91% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 45
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 90.7%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 22.2%; rating input score 22; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.2%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.89; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.9%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 90.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $188K · 12 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 22/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.