Michigan Farmers Market Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
452119498
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
East Lansing, MI, USA
Phone
5174323381
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Food, Agriculture, and Nutrition N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$962,659
Expenses
$1,003,156
Assets
$804,765
Liabilities
$335,956

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ALEXANDER STEWARD (PRESIDENT)
  • SUZANNAH BARRIE (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • AMANDA SHREVE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • AMANDA SHREVE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $85,299 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Mifma supports the viability of all community-driven marketplaces so that they can connect all consumers to local farms and businesses.

What it reported doing in 2024

Nutrition incentive - mifma provides technical assistance for grantees of the gus schumacher nutrition incentive program implementing nutrition incentive programs in farm direct settings and all produce prescription projects as a member of the nutrition incentive program national training, technical assistance, evaluation and information center referred to as the nutrition incentive hub. In addition to providing one-on-one technical assistance, mifma also convenes communities of practice, creates and sources resources from the field, and supports facilitating both in-person and virtual meetings of grantees and experts from the field.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 68% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.3%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 74.9%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $49.31 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.2%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.8; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.42; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.5%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 78.3% of revenue deployed · 74.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $751K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $85K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.