Uspoultry & Egg Associationinc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 580704657
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Tucker, GA, USA
- Phone
- 7704939401
- Rating
- 51
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $12,150,419
- Expenses
- $11,785,405
- Assets
- $34,570,045
- Liabilities
- $18,354,903
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
32 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MARK N MORRIS (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- MARK N MORRIS (PRESIDENT): $424,505 total reported compensation
- GWEN E VENABLE (EXEC VP COMM): $286,106 total reported compensation
- PAUL J BREDWELL (EXEC VP REG): $244,826 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To partner with our state affiliates and national organizations to augment and influence each other's efforts in attacking common problems, avoiding duplication. To be committed to the advancement of research and education in poultry science and technology. To ensure the international poultry expo is the world's premier poultry exposition, benefiting both exhibitors and attendees. To always be responsive and effective to the changing needs of our industry. To increase the availability and constant improvement of the quality and safety of poultry products. To promote responsible practices in animal care and environmental stewardship.
What it reported doing in 2024
Technical services: food safety & production and environmental programs provide regulatory and compliance expertise and representation for the industry; information technology provides both software and hardware consulting as well as system troubleshooting for affiliated state associations and species-specific associations. Supporting the poultry and egg industry in many various ways.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 93% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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: 86
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 48
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 99.7%; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 3%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.93; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.53; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 13.8%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 26 of 26 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $11M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $425K · 32 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 14 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 3 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.