Pine Island Sharing Shelves

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
411697527
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Pine Island, MN, USA
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$102,933
Expenses
$54,977
Assets
$159,562

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Steve Pleschourt (President)

People named in this filing

  • Steve Pleschourt (President)
  • Danielle Wheeler (Treasurer)
  • Tracy Barsness (Outgoing Assistant Manager)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

A community supported food shelf providing nutrition to those in need. Pine Island Sharing Shelves continues to maintain a Super Shelf status this year with focus on stocking healthy meat dairy fresh produce eggs baking items; and maintaining a respectful and safe place to shop.

What it reported doing in 2025

Wages paid to a Part-Time Manager and Assistant Manager who lead volunteers that staff the food shelf operating hours source food and seek out funding to keep the organization running

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% 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.

The verdict

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 50.3%; rating input score 50
  • Program expense ratio: 92.4%; rating input score 92

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 46.6%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.9; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.1%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 17.6% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.3% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 50.3% of revenue deployed · 92.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $51K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.