Second Harvest Food Bank Santa Cruz County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770326685
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Official website data refreshed
Aug 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Watsonville, CA, US
Phone
(831) 662-0991
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Food Banks, Pantries

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$30,060,054
Expenses
$28,464,271
Assets
$23,513,642
Liabilities
$1,238,973

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ERICA PADILLA-CHAVEZ (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • ERICA PADILLA-CHAVEZ (CEO): $299,419 total reported compensation
  • BRENDAN MIELE (COO): $182,719 total reported compensation
  • ANGELITO TOLENTINO (CFO): $169,175 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 end hunger in Santa Cruz County through community partnerships, food distribution, and advocacy.

What it reported doing in 2024

Community Distributions Second Harvest Food Banks mission is to inspire and support Santa Cruz County in providing nourishment for all community members. SHFB acquires and distributes donated and purchased food, as well as United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) commodities, to individuals and families in need throughout Santa Cruz County, Driven by measurable impact, SHFB distributed 10.5 million pounds of food during the reported fiscal year. The organization responds rapidly to food insecurity caused by natural disasters and external disruptions, including the SNAP benefit hold in the fall. SHFB continues to strengthen its network through partnerships with 67 community-based organizations, expanding access to food and essential services. Ongoing collaborations with local farmers and fisheries further reinforce a resilient, community-centered food system while helping to keep resources circulating within the local economy.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 67% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 75% 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: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.6%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 93.4%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: $33.21 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 24th 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: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 20th 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: 5.3%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.83; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.1%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 88.6% of revenue deployed · 93.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 16 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $26.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $299K · 21 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 38 of 39 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 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.
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule G fundraiser detail did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.