North Country Food Alliance
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 463139547
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2019–2023
- Forms available
- Form 990 2023
- Location
- Minneapolis, MN, USA
- Phone
- 6125684585
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Food Programs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $724,482
- Expenses
- $739,682
- Assets
- $44,522
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- Samuel Madrigal (Chair): $21,658 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of North Country Food Alliance is to strengthen food sovereignty in the Twin Cities Metro Area. We do this through two main program areas: foodshare and gardening. Our foodshare program rescues overstock food that would otherwise go to waste at farms, grocery stores, and distribution centers, and delivers it to community food shelves and kitchens. We also purchase produce from BIPOC-run farms to share for free with community groups. Our garden program increases access to land for food production and shares fresh, healthy produce with people in the neighborhood. We also educate the public on issues of food waste and food sovereignty.
What it reported doing in 2023
Community Gardens: We plant gardens in neighborhoods with restricted access to fresh produce. These gardens give people the opportunity to learn how to grow their own healthy food and provide free produce to folks in the neighborhood. In 2021, we worked with the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority to transfer management of this community garden to the Somali American Farmers Association (SAFA). Horn Towers is home to many Somali elders, and SAFA grows East African greens and crops like millet and okra in traditional ways that include regenerative practices. We also manage a garden in North Minneapolis, which has grown to house 24 circular raised beds and 16 rectangular ones. This is the largest it's been since its founding in 2017. In spring 2022, we also started managing the community garden at Walker Church and we also cultivate a plot at the Merriam Station Community Garden in St. Paul.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 84% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 83% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 85
- Transparency & Controls: 85
- Accountability: 78
- Sustainability: 34
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 89.5%; rating input score 89
- Program expense ratio: 87.6%; rating input score 88
- Fundraising efficiency: $17.64 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 82.5%; rating input score 83; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -2.1%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.06; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.9%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -21.4% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 89.5% of revenue deployed · 87.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $648K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $22K · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2019 to 2023
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 11 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 55/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.