Vermont Foodbank
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 223021942
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Barre, VT, USA
- Phone
- 8024763341
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Food Banks, Pantries
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $35,923,073
- Expenses
- $34,754,340
- Assets
- $35,694,932
- Liabilities
- $3,479,770
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
19 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JOHN SAYLES (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
Highest reported compensation
- JOHN SAYLES (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $223,174 total reported compensation
- MONICA URQUHART (CHIEF EQUITY PEOPLE/CULTURE OFFICER): $166,245 total reported compensation
- JASON MARING (CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER): $162,113 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To gather and share quality food and nurture partnerships so that no one in Vermont will go hungry.
What it reported doing in 2024
In fiscal year 2025, Vermont foodbank distributed more than 14.1 million pounds of donated food, usda foods, and purchased food directly to individuals and to more than 220 network partners. Of that, over 4.4 million pounds of fresh fruits and vegetables were distributed, and 50% of the food distributed was fresh food (produce, meat, eggs, and dairy). Vermont foodbank also worked with almost 225 Vermont farms to purchase, gather and share close to $1.9 million worth of Vermont-grown food. During the same period, the foodbank funded 369 grants totaling close to $1.3m to network and program partner organizations. These grants, which reached every county in Vermont, deepened our impact and helped solve targeted challenges to food access in local communities (examples include increasing refrigeration capacity to enabling purchasing fresh produce from local, small-scale farms).the foodbank also worked with 77 partners, housing sites, hospitals, and schools to host a total of 760 fresh food distribution events across all Vermont counties, distributing fresh foods to an average of more than 10,000 households a month. The Vermont foodbank continues to see increases in expenses over pre-pandemic budgets, at the same time that federal food and funds are being cut and policy changes are making it harder for people to meet basic needs, increasing the need for charitable food. Vermont foodbank has relied on reserves to continue to meet this increased level of need. Revenue in fiscal year 2025 met projections, mainly through private philanthropy, and a $1m appropriation from the state of Vermont.a 2022 study by the university of Vermont shows that 2 in 5 people in Vermont experienced food insecurity in the 12 months prior. This data is supported by 2023 data shared by the usda, which also shows a second year in a row of rising food insecurity rates. These studies show that food insecurity is far higher than the 9.6% food insecurity rate Vermont saw before the pandemic, and also higher than at any point in 2020 or 2021, during the height of the pandemic impacts. Federal policy changes are increasing food and economic insecurity, and data to measure the impacts of these changes may not be available by the federal government in the future. The level of need is beyond what our network of community organizations was built to address. The Vermont foodbank, the state's only food bank, is an integral part of Vermont's food security response system. Increased levels of food insecurity over the last two years have strained resources at both Vermont foodbank and its network of more than 220 food access agencies (food shelves, meal sites, etc.). Philanthropic support remains strong, but the resources needed to sustain increased levels of operations are outpacing financial resources and federal cuts are impacting both resources to Vermont foodbank and its partners as well as increasing food insecurity for people in Vermont. Vermont foodbank is advocating alongside partners for increased state support to help close this gap.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 69% 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 76
- Transparency & Controls: 81
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 49
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 77.2%; rating input score 77
- Program expense ratio: 82.6%; rating input score 83
- Fundraising efficiency: $17.5 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- 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; 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 3.3%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.03; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.3%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 14.2% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 77.2% of revenue deployed · 82.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $28.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $223K · 19 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $1.4M reported
- Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 142 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 114 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 54/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.