Hastings Family Service

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237083534
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Hastings, MN, USA
Phone
6514377134
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,682,648
Expenses
$2,309,726
Assets
$3,991,466
Liabilities
$90,127

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KELLI REITZEL (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • AMY SUTTON (EXECUTIVE DI): $142,070 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Hastings family service is a community-based nonprofit agency providing a range of emergency, supportive, and community services since 1970 to assist and guide neighbors from the hastings, Minnesota, area who are struggling to meet their basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, support, or transportation. Hfs engages the community to provide help and hope to neighbors, striving to assist those in need while providing fulfilling opportunities for volunteers and community members to support these efforts. Mission: the people of the hastings area reaching out as family in support and service to one another.

What it reported doing in 2025

Emergency services emergency assistance - hfs provides emergency grants and/or vouchers to individuals and families to assist with some expenses, such as housing, utilities, automobile repairs, gas, prescriptions, etc. Referral and resource assistance is also offered. In 2025, 120 grants totaling 64,830 were provided to families, and 5,126 families received emergency bags and food shelf items. Market food programs - provide 7-10 days of food through an in-person choice model market food shelf or a drive-thru option; includes personal care products and pet supplies options; vouchers for local grocery stores are offered for specific dietary or cultural needs. The food shelf provided 415,007 pounds of food to 3,705 families consisting of 25,479 individuals and thanksgiving meals to 110 households consisting of 332 individuals in 2025. Market on the move ("mom") - a refrigerated van that distributes a mobile produce option to senior living facilities, the senior center, and meals on wheels recipients. Mom is also used for food rescue efforts with local grocers, distributing food throughout the community and preventing a significant amount of food waste. Market express - neighbors can receive a smaller food order through drive- thru; emergency food bags are available if immediate appointments are not available.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 82% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 54% for direct work, and 46% for 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 the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.9%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 82%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.58 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 46; 46th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13.9%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.73; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.2%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.9% of revenue deployed · 82% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $142K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 46/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 50/100.