Project EATS

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
300558873
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
(212) 612-1528
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public, Society Benefit N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,378,064
Expenses
$1,562,522
Assets
$3,419,320
Liabilities
$529,996

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LINDA GOODE BRYANT (FOUNDER/PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • LINDA GOODE BRYANT (FOUNDER/PRESIDENT): $159,928 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We activate urban nature, create neighborhood-based economies, and increase the learning and skills individuals and families can access in their communities. Our work strengthens bonds between neighbors and creates space to support mutual health and well-being.

What it reported doing in 2024

Project eats' model features small-plot, community-based and operated, high-yield farms - both ground-level and rooftop. Using sustainable, primarily hand-grown, farming methods, and employing seeding, succession planning, carbon waste reuse, and other environmentally sound techniques, pe works to maximize crop yields in limited urban spaces, and provide the community with ease of access to healthy, ultra-local, "income-appropriate" food. Operating 5 farms spanning almost 5 acres located across the 3 nyc boroughs, project eats (pe):- develops and supports urban farms and farming infrastructure,- provides sales outlets for the farms,- offers workforce development and employment opportunities to community residents, - informs and uses practices that support people's consumption of healthy food, healthy living and wellbeing, regardless of income.pe farms operate as social enterprises that provide revenue sources through sales of fresh produce (60% at affordable prices within the community that generates it and 40% at premium rates to commercial markets). They also generate revenue through contracted agricultural programs. Pe is also supported by grants from charitable institutions, and contributions from the public. Pe offers an array of community programs to support the wellness of local residents ranging from site-specific agricultural art installations to workshops. Maren hassinger created an outdoor installation from steel and concrete for our sites at essex and brownsville that ran from second week of november to the third week of january.in 2022, we began project [b]eats: an exploratory percussion workshop series for seniors. In 2023, project [b]eats continued. Sessions were held twice a week for 6 months with 10 participants.in 2024, project eats after-school (peas) continued with a second session of a culinary class for a new group of students that ran for 16-weeks with new design high school. The curriculum was designed to cover the essential culinary skills and focused on plant-based recipe innovation. In 2024, we transitioned our pantry operations from a weekly to a monthly schedule between may and december. This shift was made to better serve the community by providing larger quantities of both shelf-stable and fresh food items at each distribution. These changes were implemented at both of our pantry locations in the bronx and the other in brooklyn.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 78% 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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.3%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 56.4%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.79 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 24th 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: -13.4%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.19; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.2%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 30.2% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 65.3% of revenue deployed · 56.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 13 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $881K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $160K · 13 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.