Second Harvest Food Bank of Central Florida
Legal name: Second Harvest Food Bank of Central Florida Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 592142315
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Orlando, FL, USA
- Phone
- 407-295-1066
- Rating
- 86
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $172,096,102
- Expenses
- $173,283,974
- Assets
- $56,087,128
- Liabilities
- $4,549,133
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
29 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DERRICK CHUBBS (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- DERRICK CHUBBS (PRESIDENT): $341,341 total reported compensation
- DAWN KOFFARNUS (CHIEF HEALTH SYSTEMS & FIN): $236,192 total reported compensation
- GREG HIGGERSON (CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER): $231,575 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Second Harvest Food Bank of Central Florida is a nonprofit organization working to end hunger across Brevard, Lake, Marion, Orange, Osceola, Seminole and Volusia counties. With the support of generous donors, dedicated volunteers and a caring community, Second Harvest provided enough food for **82 million meals last year. Second Harvest is also a proud member of Feeding America, the nationwide network of food banks working together to fight hunger and build stronger communities. Mission. These partners include food pantries, soup kitchens, shelters, senior centers, schools, healthcare sites and more. Mobile distributions, home deliveries and nutrition programs extend this reach even further, helping ensure that nutritious food gets to neighbors where and when it’s needed most. About Us But food is just the beginning.** Through innovative programs, Second Harvest helps address the...
What it reported doing in 2024
Benefits connection is a snap outreach program, designed to educate and assist potentially eligible low-income households enroll in the program. Our specialists provide service at partner agencies, community centers, libraries and community events to assist potential applicants. These neighbors might lack access to a computer, need support navigating an online application, have transportation/mobility challenges, be misinformed on eligibility factors, and those with literacy or language barriers. Last fiscal year, the team processed 4,155 applications in (orange, brevard, osceola, seminole, volusia, and lake) counties resulting in an estimated $11.7 million in annualized snap benefits for the community, which is over 3 million snap meals.kids cafe: a healthy meal service program that provides food exclusively to needy children during after school hours monday through friday. 27 kids cafes sites in 5 counties served 185,429 meals in addition to providing a safe and accessible site for children with nutrition education and activities. Fresh and nutritious meals from our community kitchen are prepared and delivered daily during the county academic year. Donated food also helps support kids cafes at 2 locations that prepare their own meals.direct home delivery: bring hope home (bhh) is a community health initiative dedicated to delivering nutritious grocery boxes to neighbors and patients in need on a biweekly basis. This program specifically targets individuals facing health-related challenges or transportation barriers that limit their access to food. Bhh operates through two main arms: community and healthcare. Under the community arm, the initiative serves seniors aged 60 and above, people with disabilities, or have veteran status who are identified as food insecure and lack reliable transportation. In the healthcare arm, bhh focuses on maternal and diabetic health. During the fiscal year, this program distributed 577,810 meals. Medically tailored meals (mtm) is a community health initiative that provides meals that are specifically designed and prepared to meet the medical and nutritional needs of individuals with chronic illnesses or medical conditions. This program launched in 2023, dedicated to providing weekly meals from our mercy kitchen production kitchen, for food-insecure patients diagnosed with chronic kidney disease. This pilot program, which began in orange county, has successfully served 158 patients and delivered a over 8,000 meals. Remarkably, 96% of participants reported no hospitalizations since joining the program, demonstrating its positive impact on health outcomes, and promoting better health in our community. Additionally, the medically tailored meal program also supported a health and hunger pilot by providing and delivering 2,597 meals to patients with hypertension.bites camera action: this specialty program delivers food boxes and fresh produce to 98+ vulnerable community sites reaching low-income families, veterans, seniors and adults. Collectively, 277,761 pounds of food were distributed which provided 231,468 meals.school partnerships program: promotes a student-centered, stigma-reducing approach to increasing food access among students experiencing hunger. In collaboration with community organizations and school leadership, our model emphasizes student engagement in school-based market operations. Since its inception in 2017, the second harvest school partnerships program has served over 3.5 million meals to students and their families across 76 partner sites in seven counties throughout central Florida through two program models (school markets, and fresh markets).summer food service program: provides healthy breakfasts and lunches to children in low-income areas during summer recess when school cafterias are closed. Last year 117,529 meals were distributed through this program at 85 sites in 5 counties. Culinary training program: second harvest operates a culinary training program and produces me
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 74% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 82% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 93
- Transparency & Controls: 78
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 33
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 96.8%; rating input score 97
- Program expense ratio: 95.5%; rating input score 95
- Fundraising efficiency: $33.43 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 84.8%; rating input score 85; 19th 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; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -0.7%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.32; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site
- Where the money goes: 96.8% of revenue deployed · 95.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $165.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $341K · 29 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $4.1M reported
- Consistency: 30 of 32 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 483 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.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.