Feeding People Through Plants Nfp

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
880980122
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
3122850712
Rating
47
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$256,210
Expenses
$142,238
Assets
$111,548
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MORGAN MCLUCKIE (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • MORGAN MCLUCKIE (CEO): $74,600 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The orange tent project is showing up for our neighbors experiencing homelessness with hope, human connection, and empowerment one tent, meal, and person at a time.

What it reported doing in 2025

The organization received funding from the chicago coalition to end homelessness to support its orange tent project, a program designed to assist individuals experiencing homelessness by providing temporary shelter, emergency supplies, and outreach services. Grant funds were used to purchase tents, weather-resistant materials, and other essential items that helped create safer living conditions for vulnerable individuals lacking stable housing. Through the orange tent project, the organization worked to address immediate housing insecurity while connecting participants with community resources, support services, and pathways toward long-term stability. The funding received directly supported the organization's charitable mission of serving homeless and at-risk populations by providing critical emergency assistance and improving access to basic necessities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 9
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 8%; rating input score 8
  • Program expense ratio: 14.4%; rating input score 14
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 44.5%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.78; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 52.4%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -33.9% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 25.7% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 8% of revenue deployed · 14.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $75K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 8/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.