Nebraska Cooperative Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
470352001
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lincoln, NE, USA
Phone
4024756555
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,160,085
Expenses
$1,004,848
Assets
$3,313,634
Liabilities
$684,494

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROCKY WEBER (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROCKY WEBER (PRESIDENT): $300,933 total reported compensation
  • ADAM FESER (DIRECTOR OF COOPERATIVE ADVANCEMENT): $123,136 total reported compensation
  • CHRIS BEINS (DIRECTOR): $4,014 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 Nebraska cooperative council is a trade association of Nebraska cooperatives organized under the Nebraska nonprofit corporation act. The council was organized to foster, improve and promote a better understanding of agricultural principles and practices, as well as gather and disseminate information concering the history, development and growth of agricultural cooperatives and their contribution to the welfare of the american people and to the residents of Nebraska. The council provides educational, legislative and legal services to its members and is supported primarily by dues and fees received from member cooperatives.

What it reported doing in 2024

Restricted use fund - fund for excellence - during the year ended august 31, 1999, the council established the 'fund for excellence'. The purpose of this fund is to benefit and support agricultural cooperative education programs at the institute of agricultural and natural resources, university of Nebraska foundation, or any other land grant college.energy source - during the year ended august 31, 2011, the council established the energy source fund. The purpose of this fund is to chanllange the Nebraska department of revenue regarding its application of the energy source exemption allowed for grain cooperatives. The council requested a voluntary contribution from those members affected by this exemption equal to 13% of their 2011 council dues. Any funds remaining after this issues is resolved are to be refunded to the contributing members on a proportional basis. Contributions returned to the fund for year ended august 31, 2025 amounted to $0.legacy initiative - the legacy initiative is a multi-phase project commenced by the board of directors of the council in 2017 to study and develop programs and actions to strengthen the ownership relationship between cooperative patrons and their respective cooperatives and to introduce the cooperative business model to young agricultural producers. After completing phases i and ii which consisted of surveys of Nebraska agricultural producers and cooperative employees in late 2018; the council has entered an action phase of the project in the development of educational programming for cooperative value proposition as well as the development of peer educational experiences for young agricultural producers to provide them with an added value in cooperative membership and loyalty. This action phase will be conducted on an opportunity driven basis. The Nebraska cooperative managers association doned $20,000 in 2019 to establish the legacy initiative fund to provide support for these projects on an as needed basis. The fund had related expenses of $0 for the year ended august 31,2025. The board of directors approved the extinguishment of the fund at the end of 2024 calendar year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 84% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 91% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.9%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • 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: 84.4%; rating input score 84; 36th 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: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13.4%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.3; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 43.6%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.9% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $301K · 11 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.