Food Group Minnesota Inc The

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
411246504
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New Hope, MN, USA
Phone
7634503860
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Food Banks, Pantries

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$13,092,724
Expenses
$13,438,860
Assets
$11,281,713
Liabilities
$2,337,988

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SOPHIA LENARZ-COY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SOPHIA LENARZ-COY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $155,319 total reported compensation
  • EMILY EDDY WHITE (DIRECTOR OF ADVANCEMENT AND CULTURE): $118,697 total reported compensation
  • DAVID PEEPLES (DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS): $101,503 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Fighting hunger. Nourishing our community.

What it reported doing in 2024

Hunger relief-our agency support team proudly equips over 200 food shelf and meal program partners with high-quality, nutritious, and culturally relevant food, along with essential support services. The need for food in the twin cities is at an all-time high, and our partners are rising to the challenge. We are witnessing a significant increase in families and individuals facing rising food prices and reduced access to essential resources. In response, we are proactively meeting this demand by significantly increasing the quantity of local foods we provide and enhancing our collaboration with tribal governments throughout the state. Together, we are making a powerful impact in our communities.see schedule o for additional programming language.affordable grocery-we are witnessing a remarkable surge in demand for our fare for all and twin cities mobile market programs, driven by the effects of inflation on grocery budgets. To address this need, we are confidently expanding our offerings to include premium meats and fresh produce from local farmers. With the introduction of two new propane-powered twin cities mobile market buses, we are successfully reaching even more neighborhoods with limited food access. This expansion has led to a significant increase in sales, empowering us to effectively meet the rising demand. Big river farms-big river farms worked closely with our farm teams this year, offering access to land, infrasturcture, and business development skills. We als worked closely with federal government grants and community partners to provide additional planning training, hands on technical assistance and expanded market opportunities for our farmers. We work to keep land fees low for all land farmers and have chosen to waive land fees for all indigenous farmers as a way to acknowledge lands that were stolen from native peoples.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 60% for direct work, and 40% 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 most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.3%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 84.9%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.25 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 2nd 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 89%; rating input score 89; 19th 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.6%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.84; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.8%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.3% of revenue deployed · 84.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $11.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $155K · 19 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 29 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 65 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 46 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.