Foodchain Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
454088193
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lexington, KY, USA
Phone
8592704222
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Food Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,126,685
Expenses
$1,842,461
Assets
$1,180,645
Liabilities
$20,623

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KRISTIN HUGHES (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • LEANDRA FORMAN (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LEANDRA FORMAN (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $69,946 total reported compensation
  • KRISTIN HUGHES (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $64,896 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Foodchain is located in the heart of an urban food desert, which constitutes a low-income census tract that is further than 1 mile from a grocery store, where residents struggle with both access to nutritious, wholesome ingredients as well as the food literacy that accompanies a diet high in these components. As a consequence, foodchain aims to forge links between our community residents and fresh food with education and demonstration of ways in which fresh food can be grown, acquired, and/or prepared in order to improve the long-term health outcomes of this high-risk population, encouraging a more robust local food economy, and resulting in a more resilient community. Our model, which we believe is replicable in communities around the country, combines unique operations, inluding an indoor aquaponics farm and a teaching and processing kichen.

What it reported doing in 2024

Many of foodchain's neighbors rely on dollar stores and convenience marts for their weekly shopping, with limited funds and transportation available to get to higher quality stores with a greater abundance of nutritious whole ingredients. Furthermore, with the reliance on snap dollars and other federal food benefit programs, the community has become increasingly dependent on highly-processed, shelf-stable "junk" food for their daily meals, resulting in generational diet-related illnesses, including heart disease, diabetes, and more. While this hunger-obesity paradox is in part a result of limited food access, it has been exacerbated by a decline in food literacy, where families no longer have the knowledge, equipment, and familiarity to prepare meals from fresh ingredients. Foodchain aims to address this deficiency by offering educational programs to teach cooking skills, exposing families to a wider array of cuisines and flavor profiles, inspiring more adventurous eating and kitchen confidence. With this mindset, we launched nourish lexington at the start of the pandemic to provide scratch-made nutritious meals for free to food insecure individuals in our community, along with educational materials, all while investing resources into our local food economy through the prioritization of locally farmed ingredients, made by and distributed by area professionals aand businesses. Overtime, this food access and fluency program will cultivate more self-sufficient households, as food independence leads to greater welfare and economic sustainability of a community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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.
  • 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. 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: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.6%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 89.5%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $32.43 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 13.4%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.64; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.3%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 25.9% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 20.2% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 78.6% of revenue deployed · 89.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $70K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.