USA Poultry & Egg Export Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581636513
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Tucker, GA, USA
Phone
7704130006
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$17,798,271
Expenses
$17,599,505
Assets
$11,792,694
Liabilities
$1,350,724

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

Leadership & pay

62 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GREG TYLER (PRESIDENT/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • GREG TYLER (PRESIDENT/CEO): $393,286 total reported compensation
  • RENAN ZHUANG (ECONOMIST): $151,684 total reported compensation
  • AMY MYERS (CONTROLLER): $140,783 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Create, develop, foster and promote the utilization of u.s. Poultry and egg products in foreign markets, and direct the efforts of poultry and egg producers, processors and sellers in a unified market development program

What it reported doing in 2024

USA poultry & egg export council, inc. Represents appoximately 200 member companies which account for more than 90% of all poultry and egg exports. As a representative of those companies, USA poultry & egg export council administers export promotional funds allocated by usda to promote u.s. Poultry and egg productions in foreign markets; serves as an information clearinghouse through its weekly newsletter, periodic "member alerts and membership meetings; provides market research and sales data; conducts educational programs, and addresses trade policy issues that affect u.s. Poultry and egg exports.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 44
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.9%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 94.9%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.1%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.67; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 93.9% of revenue deployed · 94.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 56 of 56 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $16.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $393K · 62 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $5.6M reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.