Food Bank Council of Michigan

Legal name: Food Bank Council of Michigan Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
382515765
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lansing, MI, US
Phone
517-485-1202
Rating
89
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$132,763,489
Expenses
$132,700,315
Assets
$5,907,248
Liabilities
$4,153,672

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dr Phillip Knight (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Dr Phillip Knight (Executive Director): $277,044 total reported compensation
  • Dawn Opal (Chief Innovation Officer): $184,094 total reported compensation
  • Marsha Keefer (Chief Operating Officer): $157,214 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Address and alleviate hunger in Michigan by increasing emergency food resources and advocating on behalf of the hunger relief network. The Food Bank Council of Michigan was created in 1984 to implement a unified strategy to address and alleviate hunger statewide by increasing emergency food resources and advocating on behalf of the hunger relief network. In 1984, many cities in Michigan faced unprecedented unemployment rates and communities suffered as a result. Michigan food banks stepped in to provide emergency support for families and individuals without enough food. Since the Council’s inception, FBCM and Michigan’s food banks have been agile and determined while facing high levels of food insecurity. The network has developed innovative strategies to respond to the specific needs of each community, sourcing large amoun.

What it reported doing in 2024

Milk - Program dedicated to distributing milk to member food banks Expenses $ 1,883,749. Including Grants of $ 1,853,598. Revenue $ 0. Food Assistance to Outreach - Assists the food bank network to create customized food assistance outreach plans. The plans include population assessment, client eligibility, staffing requirements, goal development for completing food assistance program applications, volunteer recruiting, training, supply, equipment, and communication needs. Expenses $ 784,929. Including Grants of $ 197,572. Revenue $ 0. Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program - Program to purchase foods produced within the state or within 400 miles of the delivery destination to help support local, regional and underserved producers. Expenses $ 3,628,554. Including Grants of $ 3,218,404. Revenue $ 0. Reach and Resiliency - Program to provided additional fund that are to be used in the same manner and for the same allowable costs as The Emergency Food Assistance Program. Expenses $ 676,288. Including Grants of $ 507,528. Revenue $ 0. Food Security Council Hunger Study - To gather and analyze data related to the level of food insecurity in Michigan. Expenses $ 539,994. Including Grants of $ 0. Revenue $ 0. Other programs. Expenses $ 1,862,063. Including Grants of $ 366,996. Revenue $ 453,032. Food Bank Council of Michigan's (FBCM) reported revenue of $ 132,763,488 includes the estimated value of non-cash food donations of $ 108,693,693. FBCM distributes their food to member food banks. Total reported expenses of $ 132,700,315 includes the estimated value of non-cash food distribution of $ 108,693,693. Not including the estimated non-cash value of food donated and distributed, FBCM had revenue of $ 24,069,795 and expenses of $ 24,006,622. The distribution of the donated food takes place through member food banks and their network of food pantries, meal programs, group homes, and mobile distribution sites. Additionally, fresh produce, dairy, and frozen produce are distributed to member food banks.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 65% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 97% of its reported program spending out as 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 99
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99.3%; rating input score 99
  • Program expense ratio: 99.3%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: $998.79 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th 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; 77th 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.04; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.7; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.5%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.2% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 99.3% of revenue deployed · 99.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $131.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $277K · 14 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $174K reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 20 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 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.