Dc Food Project
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 831011880
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2021–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2019
- Location
- Washington, DC, USA
- Phone
- 8583427367
- Rating
- 47
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Food Banks, Pantries
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $341,540
- Expenses
- $335,594
- Assets
- $252,871
- Liabilities
- $23,017
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- Lucie Leblois (Co-Founder): $45,000 total reported compensation
- Alysa MacClellan (Co-Founder): $45,000 total reported compensation
- Krista Weymouth (Co-Founder): $7,500 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To provide school children and their families access to additional food during the school day and over the weekends when school meals are not available.
What it reported doing in 2025
The Pantry Program serves approximately 4,000 students in 80 schools by providing access to healthy snacks meals and age-appropriate toiletries via on-site school cabinets. In 2024 we served 2,900 students in 55 schools.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 63% 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
MIXED - Program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 51
- Transparency & Controls: 53
- Accountability: 21
- Sustainability: 33
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 57.4%; rating input score 57
- Program expense ratio: 58.4%; rating input score 58
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 1.7%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.75; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 31.2%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 32.4% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 57.4% of revenue deployed · 58.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 4 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $336K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $45K · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 35 of 41 current checks pass · 6 findings to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2025
- 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PayrollTaxes column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Travel column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.