Foodshare Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 222474771
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2020
- Forms available
- Form 990 2020
- Location
- Bloomfield, CT, USA
- Phone
- 8602869999
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Food Banks, Pantries
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $52,446,003
- Expenses
- $48,885,754
- Assets
- $22,505,719
- Liabilities
- $1,077,678
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
23 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JASON JAKUBOWSKI (PRESIDENT AND CEO)
- CHRISTINE O'ROURKE (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT)
- KATIE MARTIN (VICE PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- JASON JAKUBOWSKI (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $275,015 total reported compensation
- CHRISTINE O'ROURKE (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT): $197,262 total reported compensation
- JEFF BARTHOLOMAY (VP & CFO): $169,742 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Foodshare is leading an informed, coordinated response to hunger as part of the overall community effort to alleviate poverty in hartford and tolland counties.
What it reported doing in 2020
Food collection and distribution - during the twelve months ended june 30, 2021, foodshare distributed over 14 million meals to nearly 300 community-based programs that serve people in need, including food pantries, community kitchens and mobile foodshare sites. More than 119,000 people in greater hartford are food insecure and may seek help from these programs; 30% of those at risk are children. We partner with the food industry - retailers, farmers, and maufacturers - to reclaim safe food that is not salable and distribute it to local programs that serve families, children, seniors, and others in need. We focus on providing nutritious food options to improve the health of the communities we serve. An added benefit is that less food ends up in landfills.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 84% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 89
- Transparency & Controls: 62
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 48
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 88.7%; rating input score 89
- Program expense ratio: 95.2%; rating input score 95
- Fundraising efficiency: $40.6 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 0.3%; rating input score 0; 6th 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; 80th 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: 6.8%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.46; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.6%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 9.5% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 14% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 88.7% of revenue deployed · 95.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $46.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $275K · 23 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2015 to 2020
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 6 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.
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: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.