National Ffa Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
546044662
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2025
Location
Indianapolis, IN, USA
Phone
3178026060
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Youth Development - Agricultural

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$43,725,996
Expenses
$23,004,428
Assets
$79,626,346
Liabilities
$8,369,658

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • THADDEUS BERGSCHNEIDER (NATIONAL FFA PRESIDENT)
  • MOLLY BALL (PRESIDENT)
  • SCOTT STUMP (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
  • JAMES WILLIAMS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOP.)

Highest reported compensation

  • SCOTT STUMP (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $344,242 total reported compensation
  • MOLLY BALL (PRESIDENT): $300,554 total reported compensation
  • DAN RILEY (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $242,474 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The foundation was organized for the overall purpose of furthering education and development of ffa members with emphasis in all segments of the industry of agriculture in america at the national, state, and local levels.

What it reported doing in 2025

Career development programs help ffa members learn and grow in promising careers in agriculture and related areas, from biotechnology to agricultural business and marketing to teaching. These programs include those that award ffa members for being the best at their ag specialty such as career development events and different proficiency awards. Ffa members can participate and win at the chapter, state and national levels. The national award winners are determined during the national convention and are presented at special ceremonies. Almost all ffa members have the opportunity to participate in one more of these award programs and more than 2,200 were part of the national awards. The foundation's collegiate scholarship program awarded a little over $2.4 million to more than 1,100 ffa members in 2025. National ffa foundation makes grants to the national ffa organization and other agricultural education related organizations for the operation of their agricultural education related programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 89% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 76.8%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.94 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 47.4%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.46; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.9%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56% of revenue deployed · 76.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $17.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $344K · 24 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.