Meals for Good Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
830779118
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2019
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
9176961859
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Food Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$237,368
Expenses
$157,088
Assets
$146,932
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL HURWITZ (Vice President)
  • SUSANNAH KOTEEN (President)

People named in this filing

  • CATHY NONAS (Treasurer)
  • MICHAEL HURWITZ (Vice President)
  • GREGORY SILVERMAN (BOARD MEMBER)

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

To reduce food insecurity for all people living in New York City by increasing access and choice to culturally relevant healthy food. We envision a time when everyone in NYC will have equitable access to a variety of healthy, fresh food. Increasing the resiliency of local food systems by partnering with regional farms, local food businesses and schools and pantries to ensure a sufficient supply of acceptable and accessible food for all.

What it reported doing in 2024

Meals For Good works with community-based organizations (CBOs) in high poverty neighborhoods to distribute vouchers for independent supermarkets. These vouchers are distributed to people who are food insecure. The number of vouchers each person receives is based on the size of each family and the amount of the Meals For Good grant. Each week, the supermarkets return the used vouchers with receipt data so we can see what people buy. Not surprisingly, people in every neighborhood where vouchers have been distributed, they buy high quality meats, fresh produce and kitchen basics such as corn oil, flour and other pantry staples. Our data shows that vouchers are redeemed at a very high rate, food insecurity is significantly reduced, mothers say they dont have to miss a meal so their children can eat, health is improved and financial security is increased. We are continuing to work with institutions that will collect data with the goal of helping more jurisdictions in NYC and beyond, to create similar voucher programs.

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 94% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 58
  • Sustainability: 69
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 63.4%; rating input score 63
  • Program expense ratio: 95.8%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 93.6%; rating input score 94; 54th 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: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 33.8%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.94; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 39.7% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 53.8% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 63.4% of revenue deployed · 95.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $151K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 1 filing year from 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.