Feed the Hunger Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
262975093
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2010
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4157932429
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,137,194
Expenses
$1,943,598
Assets
$12,944,473
Liabilities
$7,722,871

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PATRICIA CHANG (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • PATRICIA CHANG (CEO): $233,878 total reported compensation
  • AARON ELLIS (DIRECTOR OF LENDING & PROGRAMS): $112,534 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Feed the hunger fund exists to create sustainable food systems that nourish us all. Focusing primarily on food and agriculture related enterprises owned by low-income entrepreneurs and communities, fthf provides entrepreneurs with access to capital, technical assistance and networks that increase their income and build their assets.

What it reported doing in 2024

Please change to: feed the hunger fund (the fund), a California public benefit finance institution, was founded in july 2008. As a community development finance institution, the fund provides entrepreneurs with access to capital, technical assistance and networks that help to increase their income and build their assets. Focusing primarily on food and agriculture related enterprises predominantly owned by low income disadvantaged entrepreneurs and business owners, the fund exists to create healthy and sustainable regional food systems that nourish us all. The fund receives its funding and investments through the federal and state government, foundations and individuals. By 2024, the fund had made $17.4 million in small business and microloans in California and Hawaii and provided technical assistance to create and retain jobs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 90% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.4%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 75.6%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $19.06 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th 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: 53.4%; rating input score 53; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 38%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.66; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.6; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.8%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.2% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.8% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.9% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.4% of revenue deployed · 75.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $234K · 10 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $186K reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 53/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.