Harvest Discount Foods
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 562093989
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2013
- Forms available
- Form 990 2013, Form 990-N 2010
- Location
- Charlotte, NC, USA
- Phone
- 7046500054
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Residential Care & Adult Day Programs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $120,639
- Expenses
- $140,733
- Assets
- $44,397
- Liabilities
- $46,628
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
1 person listed
Executive titles in this filing
- BOBBY M POOLE (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- BOBBY M POOLE (PRESIDENT)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Provide food, household products and personal hygiene products at deeply discounted prices, and in some cases, as gifts, to the less-fortunate of our community.
What it reported doing in 2013
Harvest discount foods provides reduced-cost food and household items for the less fortunate of our community, those suffering from the hard circumstances and poor economic climate of our time, such as loss of employment, bad health, and other socio-economic conditions.our store is stocked with new, quality, salvage food, household products, and laundry soaps and personal hygiene products. We also offer at different seasons of the year fresh and frozen produce, and fresh and frozen meats at heavily discounted prices and sometimes at no cost to the person.during 2013, approximately 10,000 people shopped at harvest discount foods. Many of those customers used ebt cards. Most of these sales came from people with very little or no income, and who would have had to pay full retail at regular stores and receive far less for their money.we also provide heavily discounted vouchers for our products to churches and other non-profit organizations. These organizations purchase the vouchers for $20 and in turn give the vouchers away to people in their congregations or field of influence who depend on them for support. The vouchers are then redeemed in our store for $25 worth of food or other items of their choice. Some of the churches would not be able to sustain their programs without this support. We redeemed 249 such food vouchers in 2013. We are community-oriented and allow from time to time the use of our building to various charitable organizations so they can provide dinners for the homeless such as at thanksgiving and christmas. Occasionally we recruit and organize volunteers that provide labor for these events.in 2013 we provided free office space for six months to urban restoration, a nonprofit that supports children in an after-school program. Without our support they would not have been able to help these children. Further, we donated $3,855 in cash and food to local ministries in support of their missions projects.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 79
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 70
- Sustainability: 22
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 69.1%; rating input score 69
- Fundraising efficiency: $0.27 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- 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: -16.7%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.32; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.05; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: -26.9% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -21.9% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 69.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $97K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
- Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2011 to 2013
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 4/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.