Specialty Soya & Grains Alliance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
821112865
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Mankato, MN, USA
Phone
5073857557
Rating
51
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,322,409
Expenses
$1,177,036
Assets
$346,389
Liabilities
$188,448

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Randy Duckworth (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • Bryan Severs (Chair)
  • Jordan Kunisch (Secretary-Treasurer)
  • Gail Donkers (Director)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide resources that communicate the quality diversity and availability of identity-preserved soya and specialty grain products.

What it reported doing in 2024

Using funding secured from an Agricultural Trade Promotion grant from the USDAs Foreign Agricultural Service SSGA began work to create a U.S. IP brand and digital IP exchange targeting markets in North Asia Southeast Asia and Europe. SSGA hired one technical adviser for each region and provided training for the advisers along with staff and board. SSGA also commissioned a study to analyze the IP market opportunity in the Philippines and awarded contracts for U.S. IP brand development and the creation of IP technical manuals to help potential customers understand the value of the IP system. SSGA also worked to address market issue including work with partners and agencies to delay implementation of Japans phytosanitary certificate requirement.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0.4%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0.4%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.29; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.54; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0.4% of revenue deployed · 0.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $5K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $547K reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 34 current checks pass · 13 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Advertising column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX AllOtherExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ConferencesMeetings column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX DepreciationDepletion column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesAccounting column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLegal column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesManagement column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesOther column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Travel column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.