New Orleans Wine & Food Experience

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
721209885
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New Orleans, LA, USA
Phone
5044186679
Rating
42
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$491,802
Expenses
$491,140
Assets
$10,253
Liabilities
$500,000

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • AIMEE BROWN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • BRAITHE TIDWELL (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID COLOMB (PRESIDENT)
  • MIKE MORGAN (PAST PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • AIMEE BROWN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $75,920 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Annual wine and food event promoting the development of culinary arts. Educates the public on wine as a beverage for safe use. The event encourages the public to visit new orleans to promote urban development.

What it reported doing in 2024

The new orleans wine & food experience is a premier event, showcasing what the city does best eating and drinking. The organizations annual festival has become one of the most celebrated culinary events in the nation, attracting gourmands and connoisseurs. Each year, hundreds of wineries and restaurants participate. Menus feature local flavor and innovative new creations inspired by diverse cuisines. Top chefs from around the city create culinary experiences like no other. Additionally, the organization is eager to make new orleans a better place to live. Over the past 34 years, nowfe has raised more than $1.5 million for local non-profit organizations. From food banks to culinary schools, nowfes beneficiaries have been able to help the new orleans community and culture thrive.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 86% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

MIXED - 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

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

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 49th 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 0.1%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.02; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 48.77; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.5%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -30.5% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.7% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -13.3% 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: 23 of 23 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $76K · 24 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 11 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.