Yuba-sutter Farm Bureau

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
941198182
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Yuba City, CA, USA
Phone
5306736550
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$563,551
Expenses
$531,621
Assets
$1,119,612
Liabilities
$11,246

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STEPHANIE YONGER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • BRIAN GREATHOUSE (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • STEPHANIE YONGER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $74,305 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 mission of the yuba-sutter farm bureau is to unite the farmers of the bi-counties in a farm organization for the promotion and protection of their common interests without regard to political or religious affiliations.

What it reported doing in 2024

Promotion and protection of farmers' common interests in yuba and sutter counties.

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

SUPPORTED - 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: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 52.7%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 55.9%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 76.9%; rating input score 77; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.7%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.11; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24.7% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 52.7% of revenue deployed · 55.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $74K · 21 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 27 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.