Clark County Food Bank
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 911307564
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Vancouver, WA, US
- Phone
- (360) 693-0939
- Rating
- 85
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $27,025,641
- Expenses
- $23,026,806
- Assets
- $37,378,948
- Liabilities
- $1,396,917
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ALAN HAMILTON (PRESIDENT)
- EMILY STRAW (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- ALAN HAMILTON (PRESIDENT): $234,512 total reported compensation
- EMILY STRAW (PRESIDENT): $127,985 total reported compensation
- RUSSELL PRICE (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE): $60,750 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 alleviate hunger and its root causes.
What it reported doing in 2024
Food+ initiatives: hunger involves more than food. Clark county food bank is committed to developing and enhancing partnerships with community organizations who address one or more of the root causes of hunger through nutrition education, financial empowerment training, workforce development, resource navigation and other resources and skill development programs.* food+ nutrition - empowering healthy choices through food education by offering classes and workshops.* food+ access - navigating the systems that support access to critical services like snap, housing, healthcare, childcare, and more by offering one-on-one guidance to help lower the barriers between clients and the resources they need.* food+ finances - building financial confidence and stability by offering classes, coaching, and tools for budgeting, saving, and planning to help clients gain financial freedom.* food+ futures - offering job readiness by supporting participants for long-term employment and success by offering skills in warehousing, food industry, nonprofit administration, and more.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 81% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 84% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - 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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 86
- Transparency & Controls: 76
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 71
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 81.5%; rating input score 82
- Program expense ratio: 95.1%; rating input score 95
- Fundraising efficiency: $47.1 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 97.6%; rating input score 98; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 14.8%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.62; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.8%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 11.1% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 7 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 81.5% of revenue deployed · 95.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $21.9M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $235K · 13 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 38 of 39 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 42 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 39 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.