HIM Food Bank Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
742510566
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Mansfield, TX, USA
Phone
8174533663
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Food Banks, Pantries

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,393,413
Expenses
$2,472,682
Assets
$457,994
Liabilities
$40,987

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Lisa Richardson (CEO)
  • Karen Ray (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Lisa Richardson (CEO): $112,938 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 foster self-sufficiency and break the cycle of spiritual and physical poverty by providing access to healthy food and resources, while equipping our pantry partners and community with the tools to uplift and empower individuals towards a more sustainable future.

What it reported doing in 2024

In 2024, the HIM Food Bank distributed 2.025 million pounds of food to families in need through our own market and through our partner pantries. 22,836 inividuals were served directly through our food market, receiving 803,081 pounds of healthy groceries. We averaged 476 families each month who relied on our pantry for grocery assistance. Across eight school districts, 6,000 students received backpack meals each month to help meet their nutritional needs outside of school hours. We supported 76 partner pantries across the DFW Metroplex, providing bulk groceries to ensure they could serve their own communities. These pantries collectively served approximately 54,300 individuals each month. Additionally, 1,800 families were assisted with hygiene products, and 500 individuals received new toothbrushes each month from our food bank. During the holidays, we held a Thanksgiving distribution where 500 families received complete holiday meals. For Christmas assistance, 100 families were provided a holiday meal, and 485 children/teens received both clothing and a toy. Nourishing hope and transforming lives to help families become independent is our mission as we walk alongside neighbors working to get back on their feet.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 75% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 48% for direct work, and 52% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 94
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 52
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 96.3%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 93.2%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: $112.1 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.2%; rating input score 81; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 90.6%; rating input score 91; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3.3%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.19; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.6%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 96.3% of revenue deployed · 93.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 0 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $113K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 34 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: 7 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule G fundraiser detail did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.