Target Hunger Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311548849
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Houston, TX, USA
Phone
8327671677
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,275,346
Expenses
$5,486,275
Assets
$13,974,902
Liabilities
$1,188,125

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Sandra Wicoff (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Sandra Wicoff (CEO): $177,005 total reported compensation
  • Carrie Grzelak (Development Director): $124,895 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Since its founding in 1989, Target Hunger has worked tirelessly and strategically to carry out its mission to alleviate hunger and its root causes in vulnerable neighborhoods in northeast and east Houston, its primary service area. Services are delivered through a three-prong approach: providing immediate food aid that addresses the daily need for adequate amounts of nourishing food; offering social service navigation to connect clients to critical resources; and providing disaster relief for natural and other crises.

What it reported doing in 2025

Target Hunger food services include the operation of three pantry sites, drive thru produce distributions twice a week, mobile pantry sites, emergency food assistance, and spring and summer break food programs for children. In 2025, Target Hunger served over 25,000 unique individuals from more than 208 zip codes, reaching nearly 10% more households than the year before.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 71% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 63% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 46.6%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 85.8%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $21.59 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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; 64th 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: 46.6%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.55; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.5%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.3% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.3% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 46.6% of revenue deployed · 85.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 24 of 24 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $177K · 26 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $3.2M reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 47/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 57/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.