PORCH-Durham

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
451606894
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2019, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Durham, NC, USA
Phone
9193084693
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Food Banks, Pantries

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$313,848
Expenses
$208,785
Assets
$243,808
Liabilities
$2,240

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kristen Amy Jones (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kristen Amy Jones (Executive Director): $70,344 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

PORCH-Durham works in partnership with a variety of Durham county nonprofit and community based organizations to identify children and families most at risk of hunger. We provide shelf-stable foods from our monthly neighborhood food drives, fresh produce, and emergency grocery gift cards.

What it reported doing in 2025

Food for Pantries - PORCH-Durham provided supplemental food for 25 schools and community partners in Durham County who serve children and families at risk for food insecurity. The nonperishable items for this program were largely collected through monthly food drives held by neighborhoods, civic and religious groups, workplaces, schools and individuals. The food was delivered to the partner sites, who then distributed them to families.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 45% for direct work, and 55% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.1%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 79.8%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $17.94 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 44.2%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 33.5%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.17; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 33.7%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -13.5% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.5% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.1% of revenue deployed · 79.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $167K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $70K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 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: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 44/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 52/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.