Foodshot Global Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
823018724
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2017
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
5153716423
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Food, Agriculture, and Nutrition N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$361,782
Expenses
$589,747
Assets
$319,149
Liabilities
$10,000

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SARA ECKHOUSE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SARA ECKHOUSE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $190,000 total reported compensation
  • VICTOR FRIEDBERG (CHAIRMAN): $78,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Accelerate the transformation to a healthy, sustainable and equitable food system.

What it reported doing in 2024

The foodshot challenge is an annual competition that seeks to identify and support scalable, impactful, and innovative solutions to global food challenges. Development and implementation involves: collaborating with stakeholders to select that year's challenge and create objective, non-discriminatory criteria by which submissions will be evaluated; vetting submissions; and providing financial support to challenge finalists and winners. Proliferating foodshot's charitable and educational mission through its stakeholders' networks and issuing a global call for submissions for innovative, scalable solutions to address the challenge.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 42% for direct work, and 58% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 52
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 75.6%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.8 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -63%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.54; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 45.4%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7.5% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 75.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 4 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $446K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $190K · 4 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.