National Assn of State Departments of Agriculture Research Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521224508
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Arlington, VA, USA
Phone
2022969680
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,841,749
Expenses
$5,362,074
Assets
$1,830,379
Liabilities
$3,934,147

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BLAYNE ARTHUR (PRESIDENT/PAST PRESIDENT)
  • WES WARD (VP/PRESIDENT)
  • DOUG MIYAMOTO (PAST PRESIDENT (UNTIL 09/24))
  • TED MCKINNEY (NASDA CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • TED MCKINNEY (NASDA CEO): $396,981 total reported compensation
  • MARTHA VAN DALE (NASDA COO): $308,481 total reported compensation
  • ORLO EHART (SENIOR SCIENCE ADVISOR): $251,392 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 nasda foundation is the only educational and research organization that directly serves the nation's state departments of agriculture. We are a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Our mission is to enhance american food and agricultural communities through education, outreach and research.

What it reported doing in 2024

Pesticide inspector residential training: the pesticide inspector residential training program provides national pesticide educational training to inspectors and enforcement staff of pesticide state lead agencies, territories and tribes working under federal insecticide, fungicide and rodenticide act cooperative agreements. Pirt's goal is to develop or enhance pesticide enforcement staff's ability to formulate and implement pesticide regulatory programs and undertake new initiatives. Our programs support staff by delivering a foundational understanding of fifra's basic inspector concepts and activities, while enhancing their ability to conduct different types of inspections and develop strategies to address ongoing challenges through tackling complex and highly nuanced issues surrounding implementation of new federal registrations, rulemaking and priorities.pirt uses classroom instruction and field trips, including mock inspections, to teach demonstrated approaches to conducting investigations. Pirt will promote uniformity in enforcement approaches and understanding while considering differing needs based on geography and varying state or tribal regulations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 81% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 66% for direct work, and 34% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 19
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.2%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 86%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.4%; rating input score 99; 38th 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: 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: Fail
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -10.7%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.34; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.15; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.2%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.7% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.4% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.2% of revenue deployed · 86% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 8 filed program accomplishments · $4.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $397K · 18 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 29 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 30 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.