Swine Health Information Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
473408746
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Manhattan, KS, USA
Phone
7854528270
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Specifically Named Diseases Research

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,435,828
Expenses
$3,254,742
Assets
$6,838,956
Liabilities
$3,462,646

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARK SCHWARTZ (DIRECTOR & PRESIDENT)
  • RUSS NUGENT (DIRECTOR & PRESIDENT)
  • PAUL RUEN (DIRECTOR & VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DR MEGAN NIEDERWERDER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DR MEGAN NIEDERWERDER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $292,542 total reported compensation
  • DR LISA BECTON (ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR): $186,632 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Protect and enhance the health of the u.s. Swine herd through coordinated global research monitoring, targeted research investments that minimize the impact of future disease threats, and analysis of swine health data.

What it reported doing in 2024

Monitor swine diseases around the world to identify potential risks to the us swine herd. Use that information to inform swine health and biosecurity research priorities for the us pork industry, including allied industries, so that appropriate measures can be implemented to prevent introduction into the us. Fill gaps of research and information needed to prevent, prepare and respond to foreign animal or emerging diseases. Investigate the ability of common inputs that might quickly introduce disease into herds across the country, such as feed, pests, supplies, and other fomites. Research focuses on obtaining data sufficient to support a comprehensive risk assessment about potential roles of common inputs and their movements in disease introduction and dissemination. Research and communicate cost-effective improvements in national, regional and on-farm biosecurity to prevent disease introduction. Interact with international organizations and animal health companies to provide input and information into global disease risk and mitigation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 71% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 77
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.9%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 97.3%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.3%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.1; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.51; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.7%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.8% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.1% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 92.9% of revenue deployed · 97.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $3.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $293K · 13 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 22 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 22 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 9 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 51/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.