Community Kitchens Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 851244770
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2021–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2020
- Location
- Oakland, CA, USA
- Phone
- 5104098582
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Food Programs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,937,572
- Expenses
- $1,886,669
- Assets
- $851,215
- Liabilities
- $570,990
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Maria Alderete (Co-Executive Director and Co-Founder)
- Richard Mitchell (Co-Executive Director and Co-Founder)
Highest reported compensation
- Maria Alderete (Co-Executive Director and Co-Founder): $125,000 total reported compensation
- Richard Mitchell (Co-Executive Director and Co-Founder): $79,167 total reported compensation
- Nigel Jones (Board Member): $1,384 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
We are a food justice organization that prioritizes dignity, access and connection with our community meal program.Our community meal program supports our door front outreach, community based partner meal distribution programs and youth programs with Oakland Unified School District and Eat. Learn. Play. Foundation.
What it reported doing in 2025
In 2025 our Community Meal Program showed up for our clients who are often missed by traditional food systems. In 2025 we served 200,813 meals along with 175,154 pounds of groceries supporting over 2,500 unhoused and low-income families and reached over 16,000 students, nearly half of all Oakland Unified School District's kids. The growth in meal volumes was supported through our new door front distribution program at our central kitchen, serving 81,828 meals with groceries to 1,000 clients in one of the top zip codes in Alameda County that is impacted by SNAP cuts. These numbers represent quadrupled growth of impact from 2024, which reflects an increase in the number of community members experiencing food insecurity in the Bay Area, as well as the impact of federal cuts to SNAP and EBT benefits. Our clients include some of the county's most marginalized residents including the unhoused population, youth attending Title 1 schools, the elderly and individuals living below the poverty line. Our meals are distributed in 10 of the highest food insecurity areas in the Bay Area.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 75% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 72% for direct work, and 28% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 68
- Transparency & Controls: 94
- Accountability: 74
- Sustainability: 30
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 73%; rating input score 73
- Program expense ratio: 74.9%; rating input score 75
- Fundraising efficiency: $6.24 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- 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: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 2.6%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.45; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.67; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 10.9%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 22.9% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 32.6% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 73% of revenue deployed · 74.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $125K · 13 people listed
- Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 21/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.