Meet The Needs Charleston
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 472703106
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2016–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2015, Form 990-N 2014
- Location
- Mount Pleasant, SC, USA
- Phone
- 8438105960
- Rating
- 72
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Food Programs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,085,416
- Expenses
- $1,017,292
- Assets
- $207,685
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Michael Bakst (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Michael Bakst (President): $65,000 total reported compensation
- Ellen Gansen (Secretary): $34,583 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To eliminate some of the burden the area soup kitchens and shelters are facing in todays economic environment and to administer an educational program in area high schools that provides job readiness training for individuals who wish to enter the hospitality workforce.
What it reported doing in 2024
The goal of Feed the Need Charleston is to support organizations involved in feeding at-risk residents of the greater Charleston area, including One80Place, Neighbors Together, and Neighborhood House. This initiative is accomplished by fund raising events throughout the year, including, but not limited to Dining For A Cause, and FTN Kiawah Island Golf Outing. These events are made possible through the assistance of many local food and beverage professionals which support Feed the Need Charleston in achieving our fundraising goals. In addition, Feed the Need Charleston supports job training programs aimed at assisting people in finding opportunities to better their lives.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 64% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% 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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 73
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 43
- Sustainability: 43
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 80.2%; rating input score 80
- Program expense ratio: 85.5%; rating input score 86
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 95.5%; rating input score 95; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 6.3%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.2; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 9.8%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 16% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 24.5% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 80.2% of revenue deployed · 85.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 2 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $870K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $65K · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 22 of 24 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 17 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 9 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.
- Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 53/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.