Community Crisis Services and Food Bank
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 420955992
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Iowa City, IA, USA
- Phone
- 3193512726
- Rating
- 84
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Emergency Assistance
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $14,374,216
- Expenses
- $15,611,527
- Assets
- $7,320,382
- Liabilities
- $1,542,528
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
19 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- NELSON SARAH (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- NELSON SARAH (CEO): $195,143 total reported compensation
- KORBAKES ADRIANNE (COO): $163,539 total reported compensation
- STEINES JENNIFER (CFO): $131,257 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Community crisis services and food bank is a volunteer-driven organization that provides immediate and non-judgmental support for individuals facing emotional, food, or financial crisis.
What it reported doing in 2024
Crisis intervention services: available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. When you contact community through phone, chat or text, expect to talk confidentially to a skilled volunteer or staff who will listen with compassion, respond without judgment and treat you with respect. Our volunteers and staff complete a minimum of 62 hours of training to provide support and comfort for clients in times of crisis. They know how to work collaboratively with you to brainstorm potential options and generate an action plan if you think it could be helpful. We also maintain an extensive resource database, our staff/volunteers may be able to help you find more specialized local services and resources from national organizations. In fiscal year ending june 30, 2025, 108,823 units of service were provided through phone hotline, chat and text, mobile crisis response, guidelink center triage, suicide intervention, information and referrals, tdd message relay for deaf, community education and outreach, and support groups.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 76% for direct work, and 24% for 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 94
- Transparency & Controls: 75
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 24
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 94.6%; rating input score 95
- Fundraising efficiency: $19.85 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: -8.6%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.47; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.9%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 19.6% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 17.3% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 94.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $14.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $195K · 19 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 57/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.