Food for the Hungry

Legal name: Fh Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
208424918
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Jul 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Phoenix, AZ, US
Phone
8002486437
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$116,201,891
Expenses
$117,160,489
Assets
$21,387,867
Liabilities
$14,999,456

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARK VISO (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARK VISO (PRESIDENT & CEO): $467,166 total reported compensation
  • GEROGE SCHUTTER (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER (THRU 8/24)): $220,358 total reported compensation
  • TIMOTHY GLEESON (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $124,543 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We have worked since 1971 to serve the most vulnerable people on earth through purposeful relief and development. Our methodology is informed by our Christian beliefs that every person has intrinsic value and that it is our responsibility to advocate for the poor and the marginalized.

What it reported doing in 2024

Health programs: malnutrition and illness prevention, trainings on proper sanitation practices, health assessments, training and educating of local healthcare representatives, assistance with health insurance provision. HIV/AIDS: clinical treatment, home-based care, education on proper nutrition and prevention, biblical training on abstinence and faithfulness, medical support, outreach.

Operating model

Revenue model
Affiliate-supported. 88% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 75% for direct work, and 25% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Pass
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 50th 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; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.8%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.7; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.1%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 7 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $117.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $467K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.