Hunger at Home

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
475462753
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024, Form 990-N 2015
Location
San Jose, CA, USA
Phone
4083180038
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,803,448
Expenses
$2,319,706
Assets
$313,065
Liabilities
$117,808

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JENNIFER SANT'ANNA (BOARD PRESIDENT & CHAIR)
  • WILLIAM EWELL STERNER (CEO, FOUNDER)

Highest reported compensation

  • WILLIAM EWELL STERNER (CEO, FOUNDER): $206,989 total reported compensation
  • DINARI BROWN (CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER): $105,379 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Eliminating hunger gap in america by promoting policies, the sharing of resources, solutions and practices that strengthen the relationships between business interests and nonprofit communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Hunger at home bridges the gap between surplus and need by recovering edible food from local businesses and redirecting it to nonprofit and community partners. In 2024, over 858,000 pounds of food were rescued, offsetting 3.3 million pounds of carbon emissions and supporting 47 organizations serving diverse populations.through our prepared meal program, we deliver nutritious, culturally responsive meals to individuals experiencing homelessness, those in shelters or transitional housing, homebound seniors, students, and veterans. All meals are prepared in our certified kitchen and follow nutrition guidelines designed to support overall health.our weekly food distributions reach thousands of families each year, offering fresh groceries and perishables. These distributions prioritize women, families with children or seniors, and working households facing food insecurity.community volunteers contributed over 3,500 hours to help sort food, prepare meals, and support distribution-strengthening our ability to serve with compassion and efficiency.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 83
  • Sustainability: 10
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72.2%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 56.1%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.92 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -28.6%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.13; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.38; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.5%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 23.7% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 22.1% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 72.2% of revenue deployed · 56.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $207K · 16 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.