National Industrial Hemp Council
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 833928316
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2019–2023
- Forms available
- Form 990 2023
- Location
- Washington, DC, USA
- Phone
- 8327141806
- Rating
- 44
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Professional Societies & Associations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $815,368
- Expenses
- $479,977
- Assets
- $0
- Liabilities
- $129,818
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Patrick Atagi (President & CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- Curtis Anderson (Chief Financial Officer): $3,176 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The National Industrial Hemp Council of America [NIHCOA] exists to promote the production and use of hemp both in North America and globally. We represent the North American industrial hemp industry within its home market, and we are global advocates for its sustainable long-term growth and profitability. We assist members to enter the industry, educate consumers on the applications and advantages of industrial hemp and enable networking and the sharing of our resources. Backed by the US Government, our senior team comprises international, federal, state, private industry, and government professionals from across the agriculture and business sectors.
What it reported doing in 2023
The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) of the US Department of Agriculture awarded a grant to NIHCOA under the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops program (TASC 06) to to conduct life cycle inventories and life cycle assessments to establish a comparative index that will showcase industrial hemp's sustainability credentials, integrate into indexing organizations' life cycle inventories, and encourage brands and retailers to positively consider industrial hemp fiber products.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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 program spending has grown recently. 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: 90
- Accountability: 50
- Sustainability: 50
- Growth: 100
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: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 77.8%; rating input score 78; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 41.1%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0.7%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 34.1% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 51% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 9 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $3K · 9 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 10 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2023
- 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.