Helping Harvest Fresh Food Bank

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
222456238
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Reading, PA, USA
Phone
6109265802
Rating
88
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$26,082,748
Expenses
$25,028,941
Assets
$13,661,188
Liabilities
$2,294,448

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAY WORRALL (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JAY WORRALL (PRESIDENT): $219,397 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Since its inception in 1983, the mission of helping harvest fresh food bank (hh) is to provide nutritious food to people facing hunger in our communities. In 2024, hh distributed more than 10.5 million pounds of food to low income individuals and families in berks and schuylkill counties, free of charge. Hh began its maternal health program and opened its community kitchen. The kitchen allows hh to accept bulk food donations and prepare an estimated 2,500 ready-to-eat meals weekly.

What it reported doing in 2024

Helping harvest (hh) worked with our city reading (ocr), a community based nonprofit organization, to construct a community kitchen, which opened in april 2025. Hh receives food packaged in bulk and converts that food into ready-to-eat meals packaged, frozen, and distributed primarily to seniors throughout our network of community programs. During the year ended june 30, 2025, hh continued its fundraising efforts for construction of the kitchen, transferring those donations to ocr. In exchange for the funds raised, hh entered into a long-term lease with ocr with no rental payments. Hh makes monthly payments of $3/sq ft of leased area to ocr for common area maintenance costs.

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 42% for direct work, and 58% 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. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 93
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.5%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 96.4%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: $78.54 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 22nd 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: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • 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: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.55; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.9%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 92.5% of revenue deployed · 96.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $24.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $219K · 20 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 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: 291 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 253 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.