Ashland Food Project
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 844040278
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2021–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- Ashland, OR, USA
- Phone
- 5412059194
- Rating
- 57
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Food Banks, Pantries
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $76,673
- Expenses
- $59,995
- Assets
- $43,520
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Sarah Kirkpatrick (President)
People named in this filing
- Sarah Kirkpatrick (President)
- Amy Blossom (Secretary)
- Ingrid Laursen (Treasurer)
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
Ashland Food Project and Talent Food Project conduct bimonthly food drives in their respective towns, to keep their local food bank/pantry consistently stocked throughout the year. This is an all-volunteer operation, utilizing an organized network of neighborhood coordinators who collect filled bags of non-perishable food from households that have signed up as donors. Some donors give financial donations in lieu of groceries. Our goal is to address the issue of hunger, while building a sense of personal involvement in our local communities.
What it reported doing in 2025
Some donors contribute financially rather than fill a bag with food. After ensuring program expenses were covered, the majority of financial donations were given to the local food bank/pantry, and other local Food Projects in the region, in the form of monetary grants.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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 program spending has grown recently. 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: 18
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 60
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 16.4%; rating input score 16
- Program expense ratio: 20.9%; rating input score 21
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: 21.8%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.73; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 17.9% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 16.4% of revenue deployed · 20.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $13K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 16/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 21/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.