Harry Chapin Food Bank of Southwest Florida Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 592332120
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Fort Myers, FL, USA
- Phone
- 2393347007
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Food Banks, Pantries
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $98,629,295
- Expenses
- $87,363,005
- Assets
- $51,961,684
- Liabilities
- $11,458,169
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
16 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- RICHARD LEBER (PRESIDENT &)
Highest reported compensation
- RICHARD LEBER (PRESIDENT &): $272,246 total reported compensation
- STEVE SOUCY (CFO): $138,299 total reported compensation
- MARISSA STRESS-PETERSON (COO): $130,052 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission is to lead our community in the fight against hunger. The vision is that no one has to go hungry in our community.
What it reported doing in 2024
Partner agency program distributed 32,807,516 pounds of food to those who are hungry throughout our five-county footprint. The partner agency relies on a vetted network of partner agencies. Our agencies include social service agencies, faith-based congregations, non-profits, and community organizations. As trusted extensions of our mission, we provide our partner agencies roughly 75% of their food inventory. Partner agency membership and compliance, food procurement and food transportation, coupled with food management, are the essential elements that comprise the program, allowing it to operate effectively and efficiently.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 87% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 89
- Transparency & Controls: 64
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 60
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 86.7%; rating input score 87
- Program expense ratio: 97%; rating input score 97
- Fundraising efficiency: $57.68 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 3rd 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: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 19th 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; 77th 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: 11.4%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.59; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.22; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0.6%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 14% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 86.7% of revenue deployed · 97% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $84.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $272K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $5M reported
- Consistency: 32 of 34 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 137 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 116 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.