Milk with Dignity Standards Council Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
813374809
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Burlington, VT, USA
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Service Clubs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$592,144
Expenses
$502,852
Assets
$619,852
Liabilities
$989

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KATHERINE PAARLBERG-KVAM (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • KATHERINE PAARLBERG-KVAM (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $76,447 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Monitors compliance with, and enforces , the milk with dignity code of conduct with dairy farms that participate in the program which enlists dairy farms and milk producers to prevent and remedy human rights violations in dairy supply chains and to promote social responsibility.

What it reported doing in 2024

Mdsc completes comprehensive audits of participating dairy farms compliance with standards for working and housing conditions. This has included fact finding, report writing, problem solving, and developing corrective action plans in collaboration with participating when needed to ensure continuous improvement and increase levels of complianceon each participating farm. Mdsc has continued to staff a bilingual 24/7 support line, respond to questions raised and investigate complaints made, and then work towards a resolution where the facts establish a violation of the program code of conduct. Mdsc has continued its development of the milk with dignity program tools, materials, resources and infrastructure for continued investigation of workers complaints, auditing of conditions on farms, and provision of complianceassistance to participating farms. Mdsc also continued its work in connecting farms with resources to make housing improvements when needed.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 64% for direct work, and 36% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.3%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 89.5%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $51.1 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 78; 78th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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; 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: Pass
    • 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: 15.1%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.23; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.2%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.8% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76.3% of revenue deployed · 89.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $450K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $76K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.