Foodfightnyc Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
272195029
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2014–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2013, Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
6465681275
Rating
53
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nutrition

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,947
Expenses
$1,804
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DEBORAH LEWISON-GRANT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & CO-FO)

People named in this filing

  • DEBORAH LEWISON-GRANT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & CO-FO)
  • CAROLYN COHEN (CO-FOUNDER)
  • SUNIL KAPADIA (DIRECTOR)

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 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Foodfight's mission is to revolutionize the way we eat and think about food. Using schools as a platform, foodfight arms teachers, students and school staff with the tools and knowledge they need to make healthier choices and become role models and agents of change for their families and communities.

What it reported doing in 2016

Foodfight provides workshops to prepare certified and highly skilled teachers to bring cutting edge curriculum into their classroom communities. Primary activities: design educational curriculum; provide resources, education and classroom support for teachers to implement the curriculum; advisory role on an ongoing basis; and evaluations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 36
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 28.6%; rating input score 29
  • Program expense ratio: 46.7%; rating input score 47

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 38.8%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st 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: -88.6% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -71.5% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -90.2% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 28.6% of revenue deployed · 46.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $843 in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2014 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.