Organic Voices
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 352522095
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2014
- Location
- Manchester, NH, USA
- Phone
- 5185783780
- Rating
- 63
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Food, Agriculture, and Nutrition N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $523,201
- Expenses
- $439,293
- Assets
- $308,076
- Liabilities
- $190,754
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KATRINA STAVES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- KATRINA STAVES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $161,869 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 mission of organic voices (ov) is to educate consumers about the usda organic seal. We aim to highlight the benefits of organic food, products and practices; eliminate confusion and drive knowledge of organic to give consumers the understanding that organic provides true peace of mind.
What it reported doing in 2024
In 2024, organic voices continued work educating consumers about the usda organic seal. In the fall, ov rebranded our social media channels back to our official name, organic voices, and launched a tiktok channel with the goal of reaching younger consumers with messaging and creative content using short form video that is fun, informative, and engaging. These social media platforms, such as instagram and tiktok, are where younger consumers get much of their information and news. We are working to educate them where they are spending most of their time online.continued on schedule o. Ov also hosted our second annual, organic oscars", to highlight and celebrate all the amazing brands, retailers, scientists, leaders, and people within the organic industry doing important work to grow the industry. This has become an important event, bringing together hundreds of leaders at one event. Ov also worked closely with partner brands to highlight the work being done throughout the organic industry to clear up consumer confusion. The work ov did reached millions of consumers in 2024 and furthered ov's mission to educate consumers about organic food, products, and practices. Handsome brook farms/usda grant work: organic voices continued work with handsome brook farms throughout 2024 to help educate and amplify messaging around their climate smart organic egg grant with the usda. Ov helped create social media content, that both ov and hbf would collaborate on, educating consumers about the work being done on the farms to through the grant program. In 2024, ov helped connect with several reporters to engage on a years long series to cover all the grant work. This was still happening when the grant funding was cut. Lastly, ov helped create a deck outlining all the work that had been done so far through our partnership that outlined all the successes so far. The grant funding was cut in may 2024. Organic marketing development work with ota and toc: organic voices partnered with ota (organic trade association) and toc (the organic center) in q4 of 2024 on a new usda grant called the organic market development grant. Ov's work consists of content creation specific for social media educating consumers about the usda grant in hopes of expanding and developing new markets for organic products. This grant work is consistent with the work already being done at ov and has allowed us to expand the people we work with to help drive organic understanding with consumers.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 61
- Transparency & Controls: 65
- Accountability: 84
- Sustainability: 45
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 55.3%; rating input score 55
- Program expense ratio: 65.9%; rating input score 66
- Fundraising efficiency: $57.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th 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: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: 16%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.7; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.62; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 36.8%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -14.2% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -10.8% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -1.4% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 55.3% of revenue deployed · 65.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $289K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $162K · 14 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2015 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.