Feeding Florida
Legal name: Feeding Florida Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 650467165
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Aug 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Tallahassee, FL, US
- Phone
- 1-855-FLA-FOOD (1-855-352-3663)
- Rating
- 89
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $34,962,874
- Expenses
- $34,597,477
- Assets
- $9,089,661
- Liabilities
- $4,712,956
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ROBIN SAFLEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- ROBIN SAFLEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $244,349 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To end hunger in Florida by providing food, advocacy, and education to communities in need.
What it reported doing in 2024
The supplemental nutritional assistance program education (snap-ed) is a federally funded grant program. Snap-ed is evidence-based and helps people make their snap dollars stretch, teaches them how to cook healthy meals, and lead physically active lifestyles. Snap-ed funds projects in all us states and territories. The goal of snap-ed is to implement a nutrition education and obesity prevention program for eligible individuals that promotes healthy food choices and physical activity consistent with the most recent dietary guidelines for americans. In Florida, the implementing agencies are feeding Florida and the university of Florida. Feeding Florida was allocated funding for elders (60 and older) and adults (18-59) in all 67 counties as well as funding for youth (5-17) in 30 counties. Feeding Florida oversees all administration and has subcontracted out snap-ed activities to our 9-member food banks.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 75% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 73% for direct work, and 27% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 96
- Transparency & Controls: 79
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 33
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 97.4%; rating input score 97
- Program expense ratio: 98.4%; rating input score 98
- Fundraising efficiency: $76.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- 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; 66th 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: 1%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.26; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.52; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0.7%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 23.8% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 20.6% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 17.7% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 12 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 97.4% of revenue deployed · 98.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $34.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $244K · 10 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $150K reported
- Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 9 filed related-organization links
- 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.