Jamie Oliver Food Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
900825165
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2018–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2017, Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3105520960
Rating
33
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$309
Expenses
$20,797
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

People named in this filing

  • CLAUDE SZYFER (TREASURER/DIRECTOR)
  • KENNETH HERTZ (DIRECTOR)
  • MARK CRUMPACKER (DIRECTOR)

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 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The jamie oliver food foundation (joff) works to bring food education to schools and youth groups, businesses and communities. It does this by raising awareness to galvanize policy changes at a local and national level, offering hands-on training to instill food skills and knowledge, and founding relationships to enable us to scale nationally.

What it reported doing in 2019

Stanford university cooking program entailed the joff team teaching jamie's curriculum of cooking classes in university's cafeterias to their staff and students. The program advocates healthier cooking and eating habits. In addition, the program works to help motivate staff and students to improve their behaviors when it comes to food, giving them the tools and confidence to cook more meals at home.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 8
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -6,630.4%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -49.2% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -34.2% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2018 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.