Organic Consumers Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 411908341
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Finland, MN, USA
- Phone
- 2182264164
- Rating
- 70
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Consumer Protection
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,517,175
- Expenses
- $1,438,635
- Assets
- $963,706
- Liabilities
- $32,029
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ROSEMARY WELCH (TREASURER/CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- ROSEMARY WELCH (TREASURER/CEO): $71,400 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Education is the key to developing public awareness and responsiveness in order to protect and preserve the environment and to ensure the development of a safe and sustainable system of food and agriculture production in the united states.
What it reported doing in 2024
To increase consumers' awareness/knowledge of organic and agricultural production. To promote the development/expansion of the organic/sustainable agricultural model.the main goals of this organization are:1) to develop a newsletter called the organic consumer, for u.s. Consumers2) to create an interactive network of u.s. Consumers concerned about food safety and supportive of sustatinable, organic agriculture3) to increase people's awareness and knowledge of organic food and agricultural production4) to promote the development and expansion of the organic and sustainable agriculture model.we realize that consumer and community awareness and responsiveness is an issue of broader scope than just education; it also involves focusing on development and integration of societal goals and consensus building.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 56% for direct work, and 44% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 74
- Transparency & Controls: 72
- Accountability: 77
- Sustainability: 46
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 76.7%; rating input score 77
- Program expense ratio: 80.3%; rating input score 80
- Fundraising efficiency: $11.2 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Fail
- Conducts field audits: Fail
- May suspend future funding: Fail
- Requires financial reports: Fail
- Conducts site visits: Fail
- Requires grant agreements: Fail
- May require repayment: Fail
- Grant itemization coverage: 50%; rating input score 50; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 5.2%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.67; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -5.3% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -0.9% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 76.7% of revenue deployed · 80.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $71K · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and related organizations
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 50/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.