Inland Harvest
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 330479589
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2024–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2023
- Location
- Redlands, CA, USA
- Phone
- 9099539717
- Rating
- 86
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Human Services N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $90,510
- Expenses
- $75,585
- Assets
- $43,792
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Cindy Geers (President)
People named in this filing
- Cindy Geers (President)
- Lynne Zizzo (Secretary)
- Calvin Boothby (Treasurer)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Inland Harvest's exempt purpose is to recover and distribute healthy food that improves the quality of life of our local food-insecure community. The food is donated. There is no cost to Inland Harvest and no goods or services change hands for the rescued food. The recipient feeding programs that receive the food do not pay for or purchase the food. This food contributes to improved health and quality of life for recipients that receive this food at absolutely no cost. There are no restrictions as to who receives the food - based on race, gender, sex, religious affiliation, and no paperwork or barriers or requirements for our non-english speacking, food insecure, poor and computer inaccessible population. Inland Harvest distributes to established food pantry and feeding program . The food is distributed to the food insecure population in our local community including Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.The feeding programs then distribute to end user households.
What it reported doing in 2025
Accomplishment One: This part of our program is fully supported by a grant for $49,000. All monies from this grant go toward the cost of freighting semi truckloads of fresh produce to our distribution site every week of the year. Feeding program recipients come and pick up the produce. The total weight of produce is typically 75,000 - 80,000 pounds of produce each week. Our volunteers forklift and hand load all this food into the recipient feeding program's vehicles. The receiving organizations are well-vetted established organizations that hand out the produce to the end user households. We serve 85 feeding recipient organizations and our estimate is they distribute to about 10,000+ household end users weekly. A household can be 1 senior citizen or as large as a family of 8. Our population would never be able to afford fresh fruits and vegetables to improve their health and well being. Our community is low socio-economically. It has vast cultural diversity, ethnic diversity, many non-english speaking groups, religious diversity, food-insecure and medically at-risk persons. Our produce includes a wide diversity of types and meets the needs of many of these culturally diverse populations. Many do not have means or transportation to go outside of their local neighborhoods so the food must be transported to them by the 85 feeding organizations we distribute to. There are nominal costs of safety equipment, water, beverages, snacks, give out bags, trash bags, etc that add to the trucking costs and meet or exceed this total grant allocation. I will add the $6,179 for the rest of the distribution expenses.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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.
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 reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 90
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 56
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 83.5%; rating input score 84
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 16.5%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.58; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 20.1% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 38.1% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 42.1% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 83.5% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $76K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.