Oregon Hop Growers Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 930511586
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2016–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2022, Form 990-N 2022
- Location
- Salem, OR, USA
- Phone
- 5039827600
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Agricultural Programs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $8,664
- Expenses
- $29,522
- Assets
- $179,015
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- STEVE CHARRON (PRESIDENT)
- MICHELLE MCKAY CARROLL (VICE PRESIDENT)
- MICHELLE PALACIOS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
People named in this filing
- STEVE CHARRON (PRESIDENT)
- MICHELLE MCKAY CARROLL (VICE PRESIDENT)
- AJ LOMAX (SECRETARY/TREASURER)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Working with agencies and organizations for the knowledge of research in the growing, marketing, and consumption of hops with intentions of promoting a healthy hop industry.
What it reported doing in 2025
Work with agencies and organizations in response to Oregon hop growers needs which may include the dissemination and knowledge in hop growing cultural practices, conduct research in the growing, marketing, and consumption of hops, facilitate the marketing of hops and in general to engage in activities which tend to promote a healthy hop industry with the state of Oregon.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 73% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 90% 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
STRONG - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 87
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 70
- Sustainability: 36
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 92.5%; rating input score 93
- 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -240.7%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.06; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -127.4% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 92.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $27K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2016 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.