Angels Table

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
993569639
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Doylestown, PA, USA
Phone
2677175315
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Food Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$67,071
Expenses
$36,693
Assets
$52,064
Liabilities
$11,848

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DOROTHY DUNN (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DOROTHY DUNN (PRESIDENT)
  • CYNDY DUMIRE (VICE PRESIDE)
  • DIANE CHECK (SECRETARY)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Angels table's vision is to provide a place of nourishment for people of all economic levels, feeding and encouraging them, in an effort to create a more balanced community. We operate totally on donations so this allows patrons to eat for free at this non-profit community outreach food kitchen.

What it reported doing in 2025

We create a welcoming space where all are valued, judged not by appearances but by their humanity. Our focus isnt just on feeding, but on preserving dignity for all and providing a good home-cooked meal to bring a smile to their heart.

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 - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 40%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 73.1%; rating input score 73

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 45.3%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.42; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 40% of revenue deployed · 73.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $27K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.