National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521744502
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Beltsville, MD, USA
Phone
3015045125
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Botanical, Horticultural, and Landscape Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$689,564
Expenses
$547,157
Assets
$296,523
Liabilities
$397,307

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • KEVIN N MORRIS (EXEC DIRECTOR): $151,505 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Purpose - to evaluate turfgrasses across north america for different uses such as athletic fields, golf courses, home lawns, etc. Information is collected on color, density, leaf texture, resistance to disease, insects, droughts, etc. In various climates throughout the country.

What it reported doing in 2024

A) purpose - to evaluate turfgrasses across north america for different uses such as athletic fields, golf courses, home lawns, etc. Information is collected on color, density, leaf texture, resistance to disease, insects, droughts, etc. In various climates throughout the country. B) frequency and duration - annually new tests are initiated to evaluate experimental and commercially available grasses. Each of the tests run for four to five years. C) tests are conducted and data is collected by state universities and private universities throughout the country by their employees. The tests are evaluated throughout the growing season in each particular climate. D) in order to participate in the testing program the owner of each grass must pay a testing fee of $6,000 per grass. No other requirements must be met. There are no requirements for anyone to receive a benefit from the tests. Data from tests are published via annual progress reports and also in various trade journals. Information released is public knowledge. E) the fees for the tests are $6,000 spread over a three year period for each grass. The basis for the charges are based upon operating expenses of the organization and costs of performing the tests as contracted with each of the universities. F) the activity has and will continue to protect and inform distributors and consumers by providing an unbiased evaluation of various grasses throughout the country. G) 90% of the total time and effort of the organization is devoted to carrying out this testing activity.support for schedule a - form 990, page 1, part iii4) organization - state and private universities are the only organizations which are participating in the testing program. They are determined to qualify if they have an agricultural program at their institution and they must sign a research contract to ensure compliance with the requirements of the national turfgrass evaluation program, inc.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 83% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 53
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.8%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 89.4%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 13th 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 20.7%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.54; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.34; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 27.7%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -9.7% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.1% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -28.4% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.8% of revenue deployed · 89.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 13 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $489K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $152K · 15 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 25 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.