Feed the Hungry Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
541796436
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Arlington, VA, USA
Phone
7039790838
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$121,245
Expenses
$72,802
Assets
$471,745
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Solita Wakefield (President COO)

People named in this filing

  • Noel Torres (Board Member)
  • Carlos Alvano
  • Felipe Solis

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

To uplift the spirit and wellbeing of the poorest of the poor, the abused and the desolate through feeding and nutrition; livelihood for community and economic development; giftgiving; educational scholarships and books for schools; infrastructure for classroom

What it reported doing in 2024

Education: the organization endeavors to help feed the hunger for knowledge and education among the poor children and youth in the philippines. In partnership with the commission on filipinos overseas (cfo), scholarships are given to deserving elementary, high school, and college students, cfo screens scholars and facilitates the grants. The books program continues to welcome partners in our efforts to supplement the department of education mandated books to all schools where fth has built classrooms. As of last count, these schools come to about seventy plus schools. The need is always great, the work tremendous. Feed the hungry, incs books program has also been supporting the educational needs of various institutions in the philippines.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59.3%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 93.8%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 40%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.48; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -14.8% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -10.8% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.8% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59.3% of revenue deployed · 93.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $68K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.