Ujima Hunger Coalition

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
992358141
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
3145848592
Rating
49
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Food Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$535,786
Expenses
$772,437
Assets
$60,825
Liabilities
$507,385

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Dr James J Gillespie (Chairman)
  • Dr Lucinda Perry-Jones (Chairman)
  • Amaka Nweke (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to ensure that every eligible child has access to nutritious meals outside of school hours.

What it reported doing in 2025

Coordinated the procurement and distribution of nutritious meals to children through the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) and other community food initiatives. During 2025, the organization partnered with schools, community organizations, and meal providers to increase access to healthy meals when school was not in session. More than 1,000 unique children received meals through the organization's programs. Program expenditures included the purchase of prepared meals, contracted program services, food storage and distribution supplies, outreach activities, and other direct program costs necessary to administer meal services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 70% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 12
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.7%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 52.5%; rating input score 53
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -44.2%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.08; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 8.34; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

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

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75.7% of revenue deployed · 52.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $406K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.