Fort Worth Food + Wine Foundation

Legal name: Fort Worth Food & Wine Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
462798419
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Fort Worth, TX, US
Phone
817-768-9294
Rating
57
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Food, Agriculture, and Nutrition N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$369,585
Expenses
$350,914
Assets
$625,554
Liabilities
$84,617

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Lanni Julianne Eastman (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Lanni Julianne Eastman (Executive Director): $80,000 total reported compensation
  • Crystal Vastine (Director): $9,055 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We exist to cultivate Fort Worthʼs culinary culture and empower its heritage of hospitality.

What it reported doing in 2024

Scholarships, Grants, and Community Wellness: The organization fulfills its mission by providing critical financial and professional support to individuals pursuing or advancing careers in the culinary, hospitality, and food and beverage sectors. During the reporting year, the organization executed a multi-faceted support strategy: Emergency Relief & Mental Health: In partnership with the Southern Smoke Foundation, the organization funded six (6) emergency relief grants to hospitality workers facing crises such as medical emergencies or housing instability. Additionally, the organization funded eighteen (18) professional counseling sessions for four (4) industry professionals, addressing the high rates of stress and burnout within the sector to promote long-term workforce retention and resilience. Educational Scholarships: To bolster the talent pipeline, scholarships were awarded to students at The Culinary School of Fort Worth, Texas Christian University (TCU), and Tarrant County College (TCC). These awards covered tuition and essential expenses for students focused on culinary arts, hospitality, and nutrition. Professional Development: The organization sponsored two (2) scholarships for the FAB Conference, an intensive business workshop for women in hospitality. This initiative focused on leadership, operational strategy, and networking, empowering participants to advance into senior management and ownership roles.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 75% for direct work, and 25% for grants.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 38
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 40.3%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 41.3%; rating input score 41
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.34 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 62.7%; rating input score 63; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • 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: 5.1%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.78; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 25.4%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.1% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 9 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 40.3% of revenue deployed · 41.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $145K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $80K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 26 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 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.

Key Signals

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

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 51/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.