Ohio Tri County Food Alliance Dba Second Harvest Food Bank

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
832134113
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Springfield, OH, USA
Phone
9373258715
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Food Banks, Pantries

Reported finances

Revenue
$13,015,448
Expenses
$12,521,656
Assets
$6,193,681
Liabilities
$438,411

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PATRICK FIELD (BOARD PRESIDENT)
  • STEVE SHORT (BOARD VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ANDREW IRICK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANDREW IRICK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $84,545 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of Ohio tri county food alliance/second harvest food bank is to alleviate hunger in clark, champaign, and logan counties by sourcing and distributing nutritious food to people in need, building community partnerships, and mobilizing the public to support hunger relief.

What it reported doing in 2024

Food bank and feeding the hungry - Ohio tri county food alliance serves the community through granting funds to second harvest food bank - to support eliminating hunger in clark, champaign, and logan counties.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 85% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
  • 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.6%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 92%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $48.01 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th 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: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.8%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.49; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.7%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -12.6% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -16% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.6% of revenue deployed · 92% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $11.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $85K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.