Living Hungry Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
815473623
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2019, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Delray Beach, FL, USA
Phone
5614002712
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Food Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,257,632
Expenses
$1,292,973
Assets
$5,492
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Maura Plante (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Maura Plante (CEO): $60,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of Living Hungry is to end hunger empower health restore vitality and unleash the hidden genius and kindness in children experiencing homelessness and neighbors suffering from diabetes and chronic diet-related conditions. We believe everyone has a potential worth nourishing. We design and build nutrition protocols innovative programs and logistics supply chains to render positive health outcomes with our Healthy Food Prescriptions Fuel-Up Packs Florida Health & Nutrition Coalition and Student Life Alliance hygiene kits and lifes basic necessities.

What it reported doing in 2025

Living Hungry sources purchases warehouses ships and distributes nutritious food and resources to support the health and wellbeing of the most vulnerable in our community. We supported 150 homeless Veterans with 600 Fuel Up packs over the summer resourced over 900 homeless students in 30 Palm Beach County Schools and 85 Healthy Food Prescription diabetic clients and their families. We sourced and allocated to food bank partners over 940,000 lbs of groceries. We believe everyone has a potential worth nourishing.

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.
  • 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.3%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 88.8%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 75%; rating input score 75; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 96.9%; rating input score 97; 48th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.8%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.6%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -25.6% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.4% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -13.2% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91.3% of revenue deployed · 88.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $60K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 42 current checks pass · 11 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Advertising column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ConferencesMeetings column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesManagement column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Interest column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Travel column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 51/100.