Ohio Farm Bureau Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311781473
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Columbus, OH, USA
Phone
6142492400
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Camps

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,117,112
Expenses
$1,399,419
Assets
$7,264,451
Liabilities
$97,572

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NATHAN BROWN (PRESIDENT)
  • DOUG MILLER (1ST VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DANIELLE BURCH (2ND VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KELLY BURNS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FOUNDATION)
  • ADAM SHARP (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, OFBF)

Highest reported compensation

  • ADAM SHARP (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, OFBF): $457,582 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL BAILEY (SR VP OPS, OFBF): $191,305 total reported compensation
  • JODI BEEKMAN (CFO, OFBF): $184,893 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 Ohio farm bureau foundation is committed to inspire and educate the next generation of farmers, ensuring the progress and prosperity of Ohio's agriculture far into the future. We create pathways for young people to learn about the variety and viability of careers in agriculture. Through scholarships, programming, and grants, the foundation builds a growing workforce of up-and-coming farmers who are passionate and prepared to grow Ohio's agricultural communities.

What it reported doing in 2025

Our work starts with ag literacy. We teach students about agriculture and all the aspects of their lives it impacts. We introduce them to the educational and employment possibilities relating to farming. The foundation believes every young person in Ohio has the potential to grow their career in agriculture.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 68% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 77% 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 83
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 97.8%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 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: 65.3%; rating input score 65; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 23rd 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: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -25.3%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.19; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.8%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.5% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.9% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 97.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $458K · 16 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 46/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.