Mercy Bakery
Legal name: Humanity for Relief and Development Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 830919620
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2019–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Aug 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Brooklyn, NY, USA
- Phone
- +1 929-470-0075
- Rating
- 69
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Disaster Preparedness and Relief Services
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,748,391
- Expenses
- $2,950,236
- Assets
- $6,482,608
- Liabilities
- $214,153
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Maeen Ali (Chair & CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- Maeen Ali (Chair & CEO): $136,987 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Ensuring no one goes to bed hungry
What it reported doing in 2024
Mercy Bakeries and Mercy Kitchens provide free public bakeries and hot meals in Yemen for those in need. We open seven days a week and guarantee food security to those in the community for one year through a needs-based voucher program.Bread4Good is a Community Giving Program (Supports Mercy Bakeries). Bread4Good is a recurring donor subscription program that directly sustains the operations of the Mercy Bakeries. Through monthly contributions, supporters help provide daily fresh bread to families facing food insecurity. The program emphasizes community engagement and long-term impact, allowing donors to play an ongoing role in addressing hunger.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 61
- Transparency & Controls: 76
- Accountability: 67
- Sustainability: 71
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 57.9%; rating input score 58
- Program expense ratio: 70.6%; rating input score 71
- Fundraising efficiency: $12.77 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Fail
- Conducts field audits: Fail
- May suspend future funding: Fail
- Requires financial reports: Pass
- Conducts site visits: Fail
- Requires grant agreements: Fail
- May require repayment: Fail
- Grant itemization coverage: 92.2%; rating input score 92; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 42.9%; rating input score 43; 7th 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: 21.3%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.2; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.6%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 20.1% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 20.5% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 14 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 9 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 57.9% of revenue deployed · 70.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 3 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported · 4 of 6 affiliation controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $137K · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 34 of 36 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 43/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 46/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.