Second Harvest Food Bank of Northeast Tennessee

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
621303822
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Kingsport, TN, US
Phone
(423) 279-0110
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Food Banks, Pantries

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$32,041,584
Expenses
$30,125,658
Assets
$19,765,740
Liabilities
$670,984

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CODY WINE (PRESIDENT)
  • RHONDA CHAFIN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • GARY STIDHAM (VICE-PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • RHONDA CHAFIN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $157,723 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To feed the hungry in Northeast Tennessee by securing and distributing food and engaging the community in the fight to end hunger through regional partnerships, programs, and education.

What it reported doing in 2024

At second harvest food bank of northeast Tennessee ("shfbnt"), we collect and distribute food throughout our community in a variety of programs and services. Food bank programs that provide direct service include: the food for kids backpack program, summer food service program, the kids cafe program, the mobile food bank, and the mobile food pantry. The food for kids backpack program provides a bag full of healthy snacks and easily prepared meal items for children in need to take home and eat after school and on weekends. The program is offered through every school in our region and children are identified by their school nurse or counselors for the program. About 5,000 children are now being served. Sponsors are secured every year so that every child in need of the food for kids program may be served.the mobile food pantry of shfbnt comes to the rescue providing regular distributions of food and grocery products to fill these gaps in need in our region and get the food out where it is most needed reaching thousands of people in need. Interested organizations and sponsors are used to host mobile food pantry distributions in various communities throughout the region. Kids cafe enables food bank agencies to provide food for children and youth programs where over 55% of children attending are at or below the poverty level. This program served an average of 636 children each month. Summer is a difficult time for families struggling with food insecurity due to the absence of meals provided for children while they are in school. Shfbnt meets the needs of families through the summer food service program ("sfsp"). Food is distributed to children in our sfsp program using two models 1) a traditional summer food service program model at stationary sites and 2) a mobile distribution model, our lunch express buses. The sfsp menu that meets usda requirements is planned for a two-week cycle shfbnt uses a combination of packed meals and thaw & serve meals. An example of a thaw & serve meal is a frozen sandwich, cheese stick, applesauce, juice, and milk. An example of a packed breakfast is cereal, whole grain snack, juice, and milk. And an example of a packed lunch is hummus, whole grain tortilla chips, sunflower seeds, canned peaches, craisins, and milk.all sfsp sites will provide adults with a meal option so they can eat lunch with their children if they bring them to a lunch express. Food boxes along with produce and perishable food will be given out to families with children through the mobile food pantry and at all sfsp sites of shfbnt.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 70% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 91% 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 most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.8%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 94%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: $39.37 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 4.2%; rating input score 4; 8th 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; 66th 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: 6%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.66; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.5%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 8 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 88.8% of revenue deployed · 94% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $28.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $158K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 34 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 42 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
  • 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.