Upper Valley MEND
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 911415660
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Leavenworth, WA, US
- Phone
- (509) 548-0408
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $4,929,697
- Expenses
- $2,481,795
- Assets
- $10,622,695
- Liabilities
- $264,112
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Kurt Peterson (President-elect)
- Tiffany Brine-Davies (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Kaylin Bettinger (Executive Dir.): $122,228 total reported compensation
- Caitlyn Evans (Director): $1,250 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Meeting Each Need with Dignity
What it reported doing in 2024
Community cupboard: the community cupboard began as a small food bank started by local churches in 1983 and has grown both in size and services over the years since. Localed in a space donated by the city of leavenworth, the community cupboard is a full-service free grocery store open to anyone in need. The cupboard provides people in the region with much needed food and hygiene items on a daily, weekly or monthly basis. It is one of the few food banks in the region open six days per week. Community cupboard provides seasonal specialty programs, such as swim lessons vouchers for children at the local pool and gifts for children during the holiday season. Upper valley mends produce gleaning program provides freshly harvested fruits and vegetables at the food bank. The gleaning program partners with local farmers and orchardists and utilizes volunteers to harvest excess and unmarketable produce and distributes this fresh produce to food banks through the two-county region.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 68% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 69% for direct work, and 31% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 64
- Transparency & Controls: 94
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 83
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 48.6%; rating input score 49
- Program expense ratio: 87.5%; rating input score 87
- Fundraising efficiency: $33.34 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- 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: 49.7%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.28; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 17.5% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 7 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 48.6% of revenue deployed · 87.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 7 filed program accomplishments · $2.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $122K · 13 people listed
- Consistency: 39 of 39 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 49/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.