Feed My Hungry People Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
731330955
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2011
Forms available
Form 990 2011
Location
Flagstaff, AZ, USA
Phone
9285262211
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
International Relief

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,032,420
Expenses
$2,065,272
Assets
$686,904
Liabilities
$248,570

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

A relief organization that provides aid in the form of food and other items.

What it reported doing in 2011

Provide nutritional food boxes, commodities and disaster relief in the form of food and material aid to the disadvantaged and underprivileged.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% 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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 80.1%; rating input score 80; 19th 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; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: -1.6%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.33; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.36; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.1%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $86K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Money network: 25 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 25 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.