Second Harvest North Central Food Bank
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 411782776
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2023
- Forms available
- Form 990 2023
- Location
- Grand Rapids, MN, USA
- Phone
- 2183264420
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Food Banks, Pantries
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $11,361,085
- Expenses
- $10,956,610
- Assets
- $0
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- SUSAN ESTEE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- SUSAN ESTEE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $171,470 total reported compensation
- JUSTIN LINNELL (OPERATIONS DIRECTOR): $104,467 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Engaging the community to end hunger
What it reported doing in 2023
Food bank distribution: second harvest north central food bank's primary program is food banking. As the only food bank serving ne Minnesota (itasca, aitkin, cass, crow wing, koochiching, kanabec, and mille lacs counties), we access nationally and regionally donated food and purchased product from manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and growers, for distribution to over 72 non-profit agency partners (food shelves and onsite meal programs). During calendar year 2023, we provided 3,029,985 pounds of food and grocery product, the equivalent of 2,423,988 meals to our agency partners. Volunteers are critical to our food bank and its operations.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 62% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 79% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 90
- Transparency & Controls: 64
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 32
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 90.2%; rating input score 90
- Program expense ratio: 93.6%; rating input score 94
- Fundraising efficiency: $48.36 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 75.3%; rating input score 75; 16th 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: 3.6%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.5%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 90.2% of revenue deployed · 93.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $10.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $171K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 to 2023
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 61 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 59 filed related-organization links
- 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 51/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.