Quad Cities Food Hub Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
460648817
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Davenport, IA, USA
Phone
5632652455
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Food Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$322,582
Expenses
$282,182
Assets
$109,784
Liabilities
$10,007

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CINDY HEILMANN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ELIZABETH HOGAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • Denise Bulat (Co-PResident)
  • MITCH TOLLERUD (CO-PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ELIZABETH HOGAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $21,065 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To support local food production, connecting producers and consumers; cultivate education and training programs; preserve and expand sustainable agriculture; foster local economic development; and promote healthy lifestyles through use of local foods, including underserved individuals and communities.

What it reported doing in 2016

Events & outreach - offer classes and events aimed at expanding consumer awareness, in regard to the health and environmental benefits of fresh and local food and facilitate the connection between local farms and consumers. Events include:- farm to table dinners- cultural dinners- pop-up dinners- educational classes taught by local producers, vendors, or educators- educational classes taught by quad cities food hub staff- local food focused family fun days

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 78% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.9%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 80.4%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $534.78 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 97; 97th 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 12.5%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.39; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.5%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 53.5% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 44.7% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.3% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.9% of revenue deployed · 80.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $227K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $21K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2014 to 2016
  • 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.

Key Signals

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

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.