National Farmers Union Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311582315
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2025541600
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,349,186
Expenses
$1,308,584
Assets
$1,523,723
Liabilities
$1,481,682

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT LAREW (PRESIDENT)
  • JEFFREY KIPPLEY (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBERT LAREW (PRESIDENT): $421,553 total reported compensation
  • BRITTANY JABLONSKY (CHIEF OF STAFF): $268,449 total reported compensation
  • ETHAN WHITMORE (VP OF FIN.& BUS. DEVT & DEP.GEN. COUNS): $249,512 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 national farmers union foundation's (nfuf) mission is to empower people to educate our youth, neighbors, media and policymakers on the social, economic and cooperative contributions of family agriculture.

What it reported doing in 2024

Fsma fda ca: the local food safety collaborative (lfsc) is a multi-year project funded by a cooperative agreement between national farmers union foundation (nfuf) and the food and drug administration (fda). It is an effort to provide training, education, and outreach to local producers and processors to enhance the fundamental knowledge of food safety, and to help these local producers and processors comply with applicable food safety modernization act (fsma) regulations. Nfuf particularly focuses on organic, sustainable, value-added, and diversified farmers and processors. Lfsc places particular emphasis on identifying and better understanding the unique needs of the sector in attaining food safety compliance.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 82% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 61% for direct work, and 39% 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.1%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 87.7%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd 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: 95.3%; rating input score 95; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 20th 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: 3%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.16; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.97; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.3%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.1% of revenue deployed · 87.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 7 filed program accomplishments · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $422K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 17 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 19 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.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 45/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 49/100.