Pascack Valley Meals on Wheels Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 222340025
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA
- Phone
- 2013580050
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $711,319
- Expenses
- $675,412
- Assets
- $304,404
- Liabilities
- $56,375
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- LAURA CACCIATORE (PRESIDENT)
- WILLIAM MCINERNEY (VICE PRESIDENT)
- JANELLE LARGHI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- JEANNE MARTIN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- JANELLE LARGHI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $48,000 total reported compensation
- JEANNE MARTIN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $37,750 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 deliver hot meals to people within the pascack valley area of bergen county who are unable to shop or cook for themselves because of age or physical disability.
What it reported doing in 2024
Home meal deliveries: the major mission of pascack valley meals on wheels (dba as meals on wheels north jersey) is to provide two meals a day (a hot meal and a cold meal) 5 days a week to eligible homebound individuals who are unable to cook or shop for themselves due to age or disability. In 2024, 56,400 meals were delivered to 415 recipients. The meals are prepared by independent caterers in their full service kitchens which are inspected regularly by local and state health inspectors. Meals were delivered by unpaid volunteers. The cost of food alone was $311,248 in 2024. Recipients were asked to make a monthly contribution to offset the cost of food and overhead based on their ability to pay. Subsidies and discounts are given upon request. No recipient is denied a meal because of inability to pay, subject to the availability of funding and subject to a waiting list to join the program if funding is not available. Grants from bergen county social services help offset the cost of food and subsidies.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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.
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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 76
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 37
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 77.9%; rating input score 78
- Program expense ratio: 82%; rating input score 82
- Fundraising efficiency: $15.5 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- 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: 5%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.45; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 12.7%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -10.1% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 77.9% of revenue deployed · 82% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $554K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $48K · 13 people listed
- Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 51/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.