Greater Baton Rouge Food Bank

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
721065318
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Baton Rouge, LA, US
Phone
(225) 359-9940
Rating
87
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$34,730,805
Expenses
$33,635,795
Assets
$21,449,728
Liabilities
$1,541,523

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

Leadership & pay

35 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL MANNING (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHAEL MANNING (PRESIDENT & CEO): $208,913 total reported compensation
  • SETH HATSFELT (CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER): $153,694 total reported compensation
  • BRIAN HIGHTOWER (CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER): $152,211 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To feed the hungry in Baton Rouge and the surrounding parishes by providing food and educational outreach through community partners.

What it reported doing in 2024

The purpose of the feeding the hungry program is to provide one of life's most basic essential food to the food insecure. 16.6 million pounds of life-sustaining food was distributed in 2024, which can provide up to 12.8 million meals. The greater baton rouge food bank serves as a clearinghouse to procure, process, and distribute food in mass quantities to our 140 partner agencies in an 11-parish area, which include pantries, soup kitchens, shelters, and mobile pantries that feed the most in need in our community. All food is provided to agencies and clients free of charge, unlike other food banks across the country.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 90% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.2%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 92.1%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $22.49 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th 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: 3.2%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.64; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.9%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 89.2% of revenue deployed · 92.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 32 of 32 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $31M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $209K · 35 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $1.2M reported
  • Consistency: 41 of 41 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.