North Dakota Farmers Union Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
450457574
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
Jamestown, ND, USA
Phone
7012522340
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Rural Economic Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$198,163
Expenses
$165,767
Assets
$362,642
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARK WATNE (PRESIDENT)
  • ROBERT KUYLEN (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARK WATNE (PRESIDENT): $597,298 total reported compensation
  • ROBERT KUYLEN (VICE PRESIDENT): $37,673 total reported compensation
  • SHANE SICKLER (TREASURER): $28,066 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 ndfu foundation was established in 2000 to raise funds for farmers union's renowned youth education program. The goal of the foundation is to establish a permanent, sustainable fund for ndfu's youth program.

What it reported doing in 2024

Funding contributed to jamestown fine arts association inc to provide funding for the raising the bar for the arts project to expand the facility and services available to youth and adults in the community. This project supports the foundation purpose of supporting youth education.red river chdo. Funding contributed to red river community housing development organization to provide funding to the walsh county childcare center project in grafton, nd. This project supports the foundation purpose to support humanitarian efforts, research initiates to enhance rural life, and rural economic development.

Operating model

Revenue model
Affiliate-supported. 74% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 64
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.3%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 99.5%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 93.5%; rating input score 93; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.3%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.19; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.2%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -56.1% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.9% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.3% of revenue deployed · 99.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $165K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $597K · 9 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 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: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.