Kauai Food Bank Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
990317431
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lihue, HI, USA
Phone
8082463809
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Food Banks, Pantries

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,485,017
Expenses
$1,300,687
Assets
$3,373,702
Liabilities
$25,791

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CYNTHIA AYANON (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • CYNTHIA AYANON (PRESIDENT)
  • CHANTAL ZARBAUGH (VICE-PRESIDE)
  • GEORGETTE GALICINAO - CAYABAN (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. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the food bank is to educate, provide nutritious food for the hungry, and respond to emergencies.

What it reported doing in 2024

The kauai independent food bank (kifb) utilizes grants, donations, and food drives to provide nutritious food for the hungry people of kauai. Kifb operates four core programs: emergency distribution, keiki (children) caf, backpack program, and kupuna (senior adults) program. Both purchased and donated foods are stored at our warehouse at 3285 waapa road in lihue, hi, where food is inventoried, categorized by type of food using our food bank categories. In 2024, kifb provided 322,490 pounds of food via our four core programs. This equates to more than 392,000 meals for hungry people on kauai. Kifb continues to see significant increases in demand for urgent/emergency food resources due to cuts in food safety-net programs, job losses, and the extremely high costs associated with food purchases on kauai. In 2024, 3,105 people were served by our emergency distribution program, including our bi-monthly community food distributions on the second and fourth wednesdays of every month. This is in addition to the daily "on- demand" distributions directly from the warehouse door, and special "event" distributions such as holiday drive through distribution held in november.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 86% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 70% for direct work, and 30% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 70
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 45.7%; rating input score 46
  • Program expense ratio: 50.1%; rating input score 50
  • Fundraising efficiency: $16.75 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 88.8%; rating input score 89; 38th 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: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.4%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.59; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.5% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 45.7% of revenue deployed · 50.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $651K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 46/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 50/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 54/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.