Foodlab Detroit

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
465146912
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Detroit, MI, USA
Phone
3137993468
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Food, Agriculture, and Nutrition N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$260,262
Expenses
$336,571
Assets
$161,785
Liabilities
$10,161

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ALICIA FARRIS (PRESIDENT)
  • DEVITA DAVISON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DEVITA DAVISON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $68,876 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Committed to growing a just, green, healthy, thriving, and delicious "good food" economy in detroit by helping to cultivate triple-bottom-line (people, planet, profit) food business.

What it reported doing in 2017

Organized a community of food entrepreneurs committed to making the possibility of good food in detroit a sustainable reality. Designed, built, and maintained systems to grow a diverse ecosystem of triple-bottom-line food businesses as part of a good food movement that is accountable to all detroiters. Program activities include workshops, various publications, membership information and referral services.

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 98% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The required major-donor schedule is missing or incomplete and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 18
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 82.4%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.39 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 93.5%; rating input score 93; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -29.3%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.48; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.5%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 17.4% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -12.3% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -10.9% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 82.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $277K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $69K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2014 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.