Missouri Corn Growers Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 431307182
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Jefferson City, MO, USA
- Phone
- 5738934181
- Rating
- 42
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $857,257
- Expenses
- $964,959
- Assets
- $4,504,376
- Liabilities
- $364,566
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
19 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- BRADLEY SCHAD (CEO)
- MATT LAMBERT (President)
- PATRICK SEYER (Vice President)
Highest reported compensation
- BRADLEY SCHAD (CEO): $249,194 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Missouri Corn Growers Association is a grassroots organization directed by its members dedicated to increasing the profitability of corn production by developing and expanding corn markets; collecting and distributing information; building coalitions with organizations and industries; and participating in the governmental and legislative process.
What it reported doing in 2024
MembershipMissouri Corn Growers Association membership programs goals in FY25 were to increase awareness of MCGA policy initiatives and build and retain grassroots participation from our members to assist in the carryout of the FY25 MCGA policy priorities. Staff held membership events to build membership and presented at industry meetings, education events, and trade shows. In addition, member benefit items were purchased to disseminate out to 1-year, 3-year and lifetime members. To assist in growing MCGA, mass mailings were conducted to advise members of events, renewal notices, call to action, and new benefits. Additional timely mailings were sent to prospective members and informational brochures on MCGA and its benefits.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Affiliate-supported. 89% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
- 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: 74
- Accountability: 74
- Sustainability: 43
- 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: 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: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -12.6%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.67; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.9%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 13.8% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $249K · 19 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 15 of 16 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- Related organizations: 4 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.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.