Jack in the Box Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330776076
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Diego, CA, USA
Phone
8585712538
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Corporate Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,623,622
Expenses
$3,203,599
Assets
$4,250,026
Liabilities
$1,450,733

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • LANCE TUCKER (DIRECTOR): $2,060,154 total reported compensation
  • RYAN OSTROM (CHAIR): $1,205,136 total reported compensation
  • DAWN HOOPER (DIRECTOR): $888,214 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The jack in the box foundation's mission is to help people access and explore life outside the box. The foundation champions the success of others, with a focus on feeding, educating, and empowering kids and families. Our primary community partner is share our strength/no kid hungry, along with 100+ local, youth-serving nonprofits across jack in the box restaurant communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Jack in the box foundation ("foundation") provides short-term financial assistance up to $2,000 to employees of its related affiliate, jack in the box inc. Or its subsidiaries or franchisees, who are impacted by unanticipated and unavoidable emergencies that cause financial hardship and are not otherwise covered by insurance, governmental or private agencies or through their own personal financial resources.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 99% of its reported program spending out as 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.4%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 95.1%; rating input score 95; 30th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11.6%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.33; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.34; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.3%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 61.7% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 36.4% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 42.2% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.4% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $3.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $2.1M · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 85 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 86 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.