Fish

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911059920
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Ellensburg, WA, USA
Phone
5099255990
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Philanthropy, Voluntarism, and Grantmaking Foundations N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,885,843
Expenses
$3,606,371
Assets
$6,065,170
Liabilities
$1,418,630

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GARY BYE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (START 05/25))
  • PEGGY MORACHE (CEO (START 04/25))

Highest reported compensation

  • PEGGY MORACHE (CEO (START 04/25)): $170,600 total reported compensation
  • GARY BYE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (START 05/25)): $80,240 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

A community-building partner connecting our neighbors to food, resources, and hope.

What it reported doing in 2024

Fish is the only food bank and supplies food and financial support to the food pantries in kittitas county. In 2025, fish supplied 1.5 million pounds of food through the food bank. Fish's food pantry is the largest in kittitas county providing supplemental groceries to more than 40% of the county's residents. The stationary pantry is located in ellensburg and mobile pantries operate throughout the rural areas of the county.open table, fish's food service division, supplies home-delivered meals and congregate senior meals throughout the county. Along with the community lunch which is available to anyone who is hungry, open table provides 60,000 meals to the residents of kittitas county.fish's other programs include the usda summer meals program for children, medically-tailored-meals, and medical-nutrition-therapy for those with chronic diseases, kittitas county diaper bank, commodity supplemental food program for seniors, basic food and snap registration for the county.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 67% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 72% for direct work, and 28% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.1%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 90.9%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $23.65 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • 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; 63rd 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: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 26.2%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.68; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.6% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.6% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.3% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.1% of revenue deployed · 90.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $171K · 10 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.