The Shoreline Soup Kitchens

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
061412728
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Essex, CT, USA
Phone
8603881988
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Food Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,500,089
Expenses
$1,375,161
Assets
$977,993
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PATRICIA DOWLING (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • PATRICIA DOWLING (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $65,415 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Provide the hungry with hot meals and groceries

What it reported doing in 2014

The shoreline soup kitchen distributed 949,147 meals to individuals and families during 2014. This included 901,674 meals from our grocery distribution sites, 30,254 heat-n-eat meals, and 16,949 meals served at area soup kitchens. The shoreline soup kitchens offer food and fellowship to the communities of chester, clinton, deep river, east lyme, essex, killingworth, lyme, madison, old lyme, old saybrook, and westbrook, Connecticut. Our family oriented meal sites serving hot, nutritious and delicious food are located in centerbrook, chester, clinton, deep river, essex, old lyme, and old saybrook. Our grocery distribution sites, where participants receive enough food for three meals for three days, are located in clinton, old lyme, old saybrook, westbrook and east lyme. Also provided to those who have limited cooking facilities are frozen heat-n-eat meals that can be picked up at any of our pantries.the shoreline soup kitchens accomplishes its goals with the help of over 900 volunteers who provided over 44,000 volunteer hours in 2014. We provide those in need with food and fellowship, responding to all with humanity and respect.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 76% 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. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 96
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.9%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 88.2%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $21.54 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 73rd 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: 8.3%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.71; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.8%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.9% of revenue deployed · 88.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $65K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.