Our Neighbors' Table Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043153941
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Amesbury, MA, USA
Phone
9783881907
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,371,031
Expenses
$4,443,675
Assets
$11,060,127
Liabilities
$3,557,224

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Lyndsey Haight (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Lyndsey Haight (Executive Director): $133,031 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Organization is committed to establishing a community that provides for the whole person with nourishing food, kindness and dignity. The Organization provides food directly to those experiencing food insecurity while also directing the Lower Merrimack Valley Food Coalition, providing strategic leadership and tracking, training, food supply and logistics through the Seacoast Regional Food Hub.

What it reported doing in 2025

Our Neighbors Table provided nearly 1.1 million meals to over 5,500 individuals - children, adults and seniors - living in northeastern Essex County, MA through our community-based grocery and hot meal programs. Our programs focus on providing fresh fruits and vegetables, dairy, meats and fish as well as grocery staples and personal care products to people who cannot otherwise afford it.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.3%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 77.7%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.91 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.7%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.49; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.32; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.2% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.9% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.3% of revenue deployed · 77.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $133K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.