Food For Thought of Contra Costa County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
872369890
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2023–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Richmond, CA, USA
Rating
96
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Reported finances

Revenue
$81,019
Expenses
$78,966
Assets
$11,746

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Michael Cohen (Co-President)
  • Neil Zarchin (Co-President)
  • Carl Nelson (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Dr Erica Bains (Parlamentarian)
  • Michael Cohen (Co-President)
  • Neil Zarchin (Co-President)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Food For Thought of Contra Costa Countys mission is to address the food insecurity faced by students and their families in the West Contra Costa County School District.

What it reported doing in 2025

Food For Thought of Contra Costa County teams of volunteers purchase package and deliver boxes of food providing Winter Break meals to over 720 kids and their families in at least 15 elementary schools in the West Contra Costa Unified School District in December. In partnership with the Community Outreach Personnel at each school it is decided which families are in the most need.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 67% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 98
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 97.5%; rating input score 97
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.5%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.15; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 52.7% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 97.5% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $79K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.