Yield Lab Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
822282693
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
St Louis, MO, USA
Phone
3144883185
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Agricultural Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$353,283
Expenses
$440,227
Assets
$114,836
Liabilities
$8,054

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JARED SPADER (CO-PRESIDENT)
  • ELLIOTT KELLNER (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRANDON DAY (COO): $93,624 total reported compensation
  • TARHE OSIEBE (Treasurer): $977 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 yield lab institute ("the institute") was created to drive global sustainable agrifood tech innovation. The institute is focused on driving more effective innovation to the market by attracting greater diversity of innovators to agrifood tech space and clearly communicating current needs through researching, advising and consulting in specific ecosystems, as well as incentivizing and assisting entrepreneurship in agrifood technology sectors. The institute supports innovation in agricultural and food systems by connecting and educating entrepreneurs, producers, distribution channel partners, agribusiness experts, investors, researchers and eaters, globally.

What it reported doing in 2024

See Schedule O

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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 available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 57
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 98.5%; rating input score 99
  • Program expense ratio: 79.1%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 80%; rating input score 80; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -24.6%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.26; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.5%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 19% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 98.5% of revenue deployed · 79.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 10 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $348K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $94K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.