Emergency Feeding Program of Seattle & King County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911902023
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Renton, WA, USA
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,798,089
Expenses
$2,785,151
Assets
$222,886
Liabilities
$15,161

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GLEN TURNER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • DONALD TYSON (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • GLEN TURNER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $101,571 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide a nutritional and culturally appropriate response to people in need of immediate food assistance by collaborating with partner agencies throughout seattle and king county.

What it reported doing in 2023

We are the emergency feeding program of seattle, king county. We provide acceess to food for families and individuals in a an emergency or crisis situation. From the single-parent mom who needs food for her baby to the working class families who have to choose between a bill payment or food, thats who we proudly serve. Each week, 50,000 pounds of food is distributed through our network. Because we embrace being one of the most accessible food distribution networks in the state of Washington, the demographics of our state is vast. Were not bound by serving only one zip code nor do we require individuals to have an id, our only requirement is if you are hungry and require the food, we provide that.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 67% 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.7%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 87.1%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $19.86 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.5%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.08; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.6%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 22.1% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.9% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86.7% of revenue deployed · 87.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $102K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.