Fairfield University
How do We Evaluate Nonprofits?
Mark S. LeClair
Professor of Economics
Director, MPA Program
Fairfield University
mleclair@fairfield.edu
We have all been taught the bake sale with 5% overhead is morally superior to the professional fundraiser with 40% overhead
Dan Pallote, founder of AIDSride TED talk (2013)
Abstract
Evaluation (assessment) of nonprofit performance is hampered both by an inability to quantify the “output” of many charitable organizations, coupled with the difficulty of determining what is due each of many stakeholders. Corporate models are of limited use, as utilization of financial metrics can be both misleading and inappropriate to the goals of the nonprofit sector. Stakeholder analysis is hampered by the difficulty of establishing what individual stakeholders should expect, and how to measure such returns, particularly across organizations. The difficulty of assessing performance at charitable institutions results in two significant problems: An inability to explicitly identify top-performing organizations out of the innumerable charities that purport to address a particular issue, and the danger that inappropriate regulation will arise out of instances of poor management or malfeasance on the part of a minority of charities, as financial metrics are emphasized.
1. Introduction
While donors would enthusiastically welcome an objective means of evaluating the efficacy of charitable organizations, the unique nature of nonprofits makes the development of universal measures of performance improbable. The utilization of a corporate model, for instance, where financials are the primary concern, devalues the performance of new or innovative organizations that are in the process of establishing or reworking their goals. Output/impact measures, such as number of individuals assisted, are appropriate for some nonprofits, but are not generalizable to entities that target causes where results are difficult to quantify. At best, such measures might demonstrate increased effectiveness of an organization over time, but provide much less guidance when judging between organizations, as a donor would be doing. Stakeholder analysis – how well a nonprofit addresses the interests of its constituencies – generally involves qualitative analysis that is difficult to apply across institutions.
In a world of many competing causes and organizations, developing a systematic means of evaluating the performance of nonprofits would be a significant achievement. It is unlikely, however, that a single means of appraising charities would ever be appropriate. This paper will apply two common models of performance to a sample of nonprofits to determine if these different methodologies produce similar rankings. If, as expected, the ratings are substantially different, this would suggest that either refinements are in order, or a new means of evaluating charitable organizations is needed. As will be argued, the nonprofit sector would benefit from better methods of oversight, particularly since scandals involving the misuse of funds, or at least the visibility of those scandals, seem to have ballooned (Gibelman and Gelman (2001)).
2. Prior Examinations of the Nonprofit Performance Question
General discussions of performance measurement can be found in Bruns (1992), who focused on corporate evaluative models. Epstein and Buhovac (2009) examined performance appraisal specific to nonprofits, as did Poister (2003) and Murray (2005). Oster (1995) provided an early examination of strategic management at nonprofits. Later work by Kaplan (2001) and Kaplan and Norton (2004) also focused on strategic considerations essential to analyzing nonprofit accomplishments, arguing that focusing on financials alone is not sufficient. Rojas (2000) compared five models of organizational effectiveness, and detailed how each would be applied to both nonprofits and for-profits, as a means of comparing their relative effectiveness.
Some of the literature on nonprofit performance is aspirational. Letts, Ryan and Grossman (1998) detailed the characteristics of high-impact charities, and the transformation that less effective organizations need to make to increase their impact. Light (2004) described how capacity building can lead to greater impact in the future.
The difficulty of establishing a rating system that accurately reflects the performance of nonprofits was raised by Forbes (1998), who reviewed 20 years of research on nonprofit assessment. The author notes that most studies ultimately focus on concerns about process rather than measurement. Sawhill, and Williamson (2001) examined the application of assessment models by a large charitable organization, The Nature Conservancy, which were intended to measure impact, activity, and capacity, and noted the difficulty with designing these metrics. Most scholars agreed that better evidence of nonprofit performance is needed, but less agreement on what that evidence would be and how it would be used. Ebrahim, and Rangam, (2010) discuss the limits of the current models of assessment and suggest an alternative approach (the contingency framework).
Ritchie, and Kolodinsky (2003) calculate 15 financial measures of organizational effectiveness using data reported by foundations on Form 990. Many of the analyses of financial models of evaluation are, at least to a degree, critical of the approach. Greenlee and Bukovinsky (1998) noted that utilization of financial standards implies that sectoral “norms” exist, and no such data was published at the time they conducted their analyis1. The authors proceed to apply ratio analysis to a large sample of nonprofits, drawing from information from Form 990, and suggest that such ratios might be utilized in evaluating performance. Speckbacher (2003) examined the applicability of corporate models of assessment to the nonprofit sector. The author noted that optimal behavior for a private firm is based upon optimization models that produce maximum profits. No such models exist for the charitable sector, where the push and pull of various stakeholders would prevent a single goal from driving organization behavior.
The two most common alternatives to financial analysis are outcome analysis and impact analysis. A practical comparison of the two approaches can be found in Rachel, (2006). Outcome analysis examines the inputs (e.g. financial) into a system, the resulting outputs (e.g. number served) and outcomes (an indicator of successes, not just those served). Outcome analysis should also include targets, and an indication of how well an organization is meeting those targets. Thorough overviews of this methodology and its contributions to assessment can be found in Morley, Vinson and Hatry (2001) and Urban Institute (2006). Likewise, Plantz, M., Greenway, M. and Hendricks, M. (1997) detailed the processes involved in outcome analysis, and described further work that needs to be done in this area. United Way (1996) provided a summary of the outcome approach, targeted at nonprofit managers. The organization also summarized the experience that charitable organizations had with utilizing this form of assessment (United Way (2000). Campbell (2002) asserted that outcome assessment puts nonprofit management in a bind. Focusing on outcomes at the project level – where managers have significant control – downplays the nonprofit’s role advancing its goals in the community. Conversely, emphasizing measurable outcomes in the public sphere grants inappropriate credit (or blame) to an organization that is tackling an issue bigger than itself. Glasrud (2001) also challenged the appropriateness of utilizing outcomes to evaluate nonprofit performance, and further noted that professionalized outcome assessment draws precious resources away from the core activities of a charitable organization.
Although similar to outcome analysis, evaluation based on impacts focuses less on quantitative goals. It is regarded as a more demanding approach, as nonprofits are assessed not only on numerical criteria, but on transformative measures. Chambers, Karlan, Ravallion, and Rogers (2009) detail how impact analysis can be applied in an international setting. Jones, Jones, Steer, and Datta (2009) suggest how the impact analysis framework could be improved.
Stakeholder analysis is based upon the conviction that nonprofits are best judged by how they address the concerns of constituencies, including donors, beneficiaries, employees, volunteers and community leaders. Efficient use of donations (the corporate model) or an increase in the number of individuals receiving benefits (outcomes/impacts) are only part of the equation in evaluating a nonprofit. Kearns (1996) detailed accountability procedures and stressed the importance that evaluative processes play in maintain public trust in nonprofits. Earlier work by the same author (Kearns, 1994) detailed the role that appropriate standards can play in the strategic goals of an organization. Herman and Renz (1998) used a sample of “effective” and “less effective” nonprofits to evaluate the effects of strong stakeholder relationships. The authors found superior performance at organizations with robust stakeholder arrangements, although the analysis is based upon the premise that this criteria was measurable.
A general look at the concept of accountability as applied to nonprofits can be found in Benjamin (2008). Ebrahim (2005) argued for greater adaptability on the part of nonprofits, asserting that fixed standards ignore institutional learning, and that organizations should instead learn from their experiences. . Koppell (2005), however, argues that the various layers of conflicting accountability can result in pathologies that prevent the adoption of appropriate mechanisms for evaluation.
Alternative models include Benchmarking (see Saul (2004) for a detailed description of the advantages and mechanics of this technique) and the Most Significant Change (MSC) methodology (Davies and Dart (2005) and Dart and Davies (2003)). This latter approach extracts field-based stories of how a nonprofit has been impactful and uses a stake-holder based evaluation process. Specifically, an organization might identify a particular family or individual who was helped with housing needs. The various stakeholders within the entity would then evaluate the processes that led to a successful outcome and how to duplicate these in similar circumstances in the future. MSC is a significant departure from other evaluative techniques in that financial and numerical criteria are downplayed, although it is acknowledged (Lennie (2011)) that this approach should be only part of the evaluation of a nonprofit.
What is evident from this discussion is that multiple, diverse methods exist for evaluating (rating) nonprofits (see Kendall and Knapp, (2000) for an early summary of approaches). The difficulty from the point of view of donors is that some methodologies may produce an outcome at variance with others. How then does one pick a successful charitable organization? Equally important, a nonprofit that ranks poorly when one approach is used, may emphasize a different method that produces a better ranking, leaving donors to conduct their own evaluations on criteria the organization neglected. In some circumstances this may be entirely appropriate. Newer charities, even if successful in pursuing their identified cause, may not produce favorable financials. Fee-for-service organizations present figures that are at variance (incomparable) with those from more traditional entities. If outcome/impact analysis is to be applied, this assumes measurable impacts, a situation that might not always prevail.
3. Evaluating Performance Methods
With so many different approaches seemingly appropriate to the evaluation of nonprofits, it is probable that some techniques over-rank and other under-rank an organization. In this section, multiple models will be applied to a sample of organizations to determine the consistency of the various methods. A case study approach will be used, as constructing an impact analysis on a large sample of nonprofits is impractial2. In the initial analysis, financial criteria will be utilized. These outcomes will be comparted to outcome/impact measures. The focus will be to determine if there is any consistency between financially-based rankings and measures that rely upon results.
Ideally, an assessment of each nonprofit using Stakeholder Analysis would also be presented. Although individual organizations are able to present information on how each stakeholder class was served, it is difficult to imagine how a systematic comparison across charities is possible or would even make sense, given the complexity of these relationships. The Impact Analysis figures represent one form of stakeholder accountability. Assessment of how charities serve their beneficiaries, staff, government-granting agencies, volunteers, etc. is a topic for future analysis.
The sector chosen for analysis is the sub-category of human services that is labeled food banks, food pantries and food distribution. It is anticipated that output/impact measurements will be more feasible in this category of nonprofits (number of patrons served), enabling a more comprehensive comparison. Financial data on all 225 nonprofits in this category is presented in Table 1. These figures are taken from Charity Navigator (the largest of the charity evaluation sites), which are in turn taken from each organization’s 990. Although Charity Navigator provides an overall ranking to all nonprofits – an amalgam of seven financial ratios – the analysis presented here will focus on three critical figures that would likely affect the decision of a well-informed donor on whether to give (Program Expenses as a Percentage of Total Expenses, Fundraising Efficiency and Program Expense Growth).
A cross-comparison of 225 charities would be a somewhat overwhelming task particularly since, as demonstrated in Table 1, there is limited variance in the reported financials across nonprofits, making contrasts difficult. Instead, the top and bottom 30 will be extracted from the sample based upon each of the criteria listed above (see Table 2). It will then be determined which charities secure a position in the top or bottom 30 across these three financial measures (or achieve two of the three). In particular, while the first two are indicative of the current performance of a nonprofit, the third portends how the organization might do in the future.
For illustrative purposes, the information in Table 2 has been summarized so that overlap of the three criteria can be noted (see Table 3). There is significant overlap in the two more traditional measures of performance, program expenses/total and fundraising efficiency, both for those at the top and bottom of the list. Charities that are in both best/worst 30 list are marked with a (2). Those appearing on only a single list are marked (1). Perhaps most significantly, those that appear only on the program expense growth lists are marked with a (1)* - a substantial proportion of the organizations. This divergence between current performance measures and the (potential) future prospects of the nonprofit is the key finding of the first part of this analysis. Picking a successful (or unsuccessful) charity based on current ratios may not be an optimal decision for donors who have a longer term view.
4. Comparisons to Impact/Output Analysis
As noted above, one of the few models of nonprofit assessment that permits an objective application is Impact Analysis. This form of assessment only makes sense within giving categories; difficult to compare number of individuals receiving food assistance to figures on how many dogs and cats were rescued. Hence, the evaluation presented here will focus on the nonprofits listed in Table 3, the “best” and the “worst” of organizations that provide food to the needy.
Charity Navigator has started to encourage nonprofits to provide an impact report. At present, however, few charities do. In order to obtain a meaningful sample, information will be extracted from the annual reports of the relevant organizations. This will necessitate restricting the data to 2016, the most recent year reported by most nonprofits. This illustrates one of the significant problems with nearly all assessment of this form: Single year cross-comparisons reflect only the most recent outcomes. The financial evaluations presented in the prior section noted the divergence between current financial ratios and potential future performance (as measured by program expense growth). There is no similar measure for Impact Analysis that would indicate greater outcomes in the future.
1. Analysis
Table 5 presents two quantitative output/impact measures that are consistently reported by nonprofits in the food bank category: Cost per meal served and cost per volume (pounds) of food delivered. As is obvious from the entries in the table, many nonprofits simply do not report this data, or report it in a manner that is not comparable to other organizations. In addition, this exercise exposes one of the fundamental problems of using this approach: Many nonprofits have multiple programs underway, including a soup kitchen, a food bank, “backpack” programs, senior food deliveries, etc. A pound of food does not mean that same thing across all these programs, as the effort that must go into delivery varies considerably. A further complication surrounds the use of data that is entirely self-reported, with a considerable incentive to inflate the figures to enhance the image of the organization.
Table 4 presents figures on both the top and bottom performers in Table 3. As predicted, a great number (about half) report no output/impact information, and the reporting worsens when one examines the lower-performing nonprofits. Distributing a pound of food costs between $0.62 and $9.75 for the organizations in the top half of table 5, with most in the $1.00-$2.00 range. Delivering a meal entails an expenditure of between $1.41 and $135, with the latter number probably attributable to imprecise reporting. In only one circumstance, Clark County Food Bank does a nonprofit sit at the top of the sample for both measures. For those organizations in the bottom half of Table 4, there is a significant drop off in the proportion of nonprofits reporting impacts/outputs. According to the figures, the cost of providing a pound of food ranges from $0.15 to $5.50. Note that this is superior to the range for the “better” charities, with the caveat that the reporting is much thinner. Community Soup Kitchen and Outreach Center is the only organization that is confirmed as a poor performer by both measures; the inconsistency that plagues the numbers for the better nonprofits is confirmed for these “poor” performers.
As is obvious, a prospective donor would have a difficult time deciding between nonprofits based upon impact/output analysis, both because of scant reporting and contradictory indications of performance. Lacking an ability to apply this type of evaluative process, contributors will return to financials as a fall back.
5. Conclusion
The tendency to evaluate nonprofits based up financials is, in some respects, simply a reflection of the difficulty of carrying out assessments in any other way. There is a fundamental belief that at least a certain percentage of donations must be devoted to program expenses or a charity is wasteful, or worse, corrupt. Unfortunately, although figures are thrown around, there is no agreement on what that percentage should be, so evaluating charities using financials is problematic from the start. Further, a nonprofit that is innovating may have poor financials initially as it seeks to establish new programs. If donors depart in response, the message is clear to the next organization that considers nontraditional approaches. One important conclusion that can be drawn from the consideration of the financials in Table 4, is that nonprofits with “excellent” ratios are not necessarily those with significant growth. This might be the one area where the data rewards charities for policies that enhance future outcomes.
Evaluating the use of output/impact information is a frustrating exercise. Not only do nonprofits report different measures of output, making comparisons difficult, but about half report nothing at all. Individuals who are seeking to evaluate one organization versus another are likely to give up in frustration and return to financials to make a judgement. It is difficult to imagine mandatory impact reporting, or even what that would exactly look like, so this method of evaluating charities may not be fruitful. Other approaches, such as Most Significant Change, are both narrow in coverage and qualitative in nature.
Notes
1. In contrast to the arguments made by Greenlee, and Bukovinsky, there are now extensive rating organizations (e.g. Charity Navigator) that do provide some measures of sectoral standards. These resources were not in place at the time the authors did their analysis.
2. Charity Navigator, the most comprehensive evaluator of nonprofits, has begun the process of adding Impact Statements to its database. At present, few are available, and fewer still present figures that could be used in a systematic way to evaluate an organization.
References
Benjamin, L. M. (2008). Account Space: How Accountability Requirements Shape Nonprofit
Practice. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(2): 201-223.
Bruns Jr., W. (1992). Performance Measurement, Evaluation, and Incentives. Boston, MA:Harvard Business School Press.
Campbell, D. (2002). Outcomes Assessment and the Paradox of Nonprofit Accountability. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12(3): 243-259.
Chambers, R., Karlan, D., Ravallion, M., and Rogers, P. (2009). Designing Impact Evaluations: Different Perspectives: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation Action.
Dart, J., and Davies, R. (2003) A Dialogical, Story-Based Evaluation Tool: The Most Significant Change Technique. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(2): 137-155.
Davies, R., and Dart, J. (2005). The 'Most Significant Change' (MSC) Technique: A Guide to Its Use
Ebrahim, A. (2005). Accountability Myopia: Losing Sight of Organizational Learning. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(1): 56-87.
Ebrahim, A. and Rangam, K. (2010) The Limits of Nonprofit Impact, Working Paper – social Enterprise Institute, Harvard University.
Epstein, M. and Buhovac, A. (2009). Performance Measurement of Not-For-Profit Organizations. Mississauga and New York: The Society of Management Accountants of Ebrahim and Rangan, May 2010 42 Canada (CMA Canada) and the
Forbes, D. (1998). Measuring the Unmeasurable. Empirical Studies of nonprofit Effectiveness from 1977 to 1997. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27(2): 183-202.
Gibelman, M., & Gelman, S. (2001). Very Public Scandals: Nongovernmental Organizations in Trouble. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 12(1): 49-66.
Glasrud, B. 2001. The Muddle of Outcome Measurement: Be Careful How You Measure Programs. Nonprofit World, 19(6): 35-37.
Greenlee, J. S., and Bukovinsky, D (1998). Financial Ratios for Use in the Analytical Review of Charitable Organizations.Ohio CPA Journal, 32–38.
Herman, R. D., and Renz, D. (1998). Nonprofit Organizational Effectiveness: Contrasts Between Especially Effective and Less Effective Organizations, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 9, 23–38.
Jones, N., Jones, H., Steer, L., & Datta, A. 2009. Improving Impact Evaluation Production and Use. London: Overseas Development Institute
Kaplan, R. S. 2001. Strategic Performance Measurement and Management in Nonprofit Organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11(3): 353-370.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. 2004. Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kearns, K. P. (1994). The strategic management of accountability in nonprofit organizations: An
analytical framework. Public Administration Review, 54(2): 185-193.
Kearns, K. P. (1996). Managing for Accountability: Preserving the Public Trust in Nonprofit Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kendall, J. and Knapp, M. (2000). “Measuring the Performance of Voluntary Organizations”. Public Management, Vol. 2, No. 1, 105-132
Koppell, J. G. S. 2005. Pathologies of Accountability: ICANN and the Challenge of "Multiple Accountabilities Disorder". Public Administration Review, 65(1): 94-108.
Letts, C. W., Ryan, W. P., & Grossman, A. 1999. High Performance Nonprofit Organizations: Managing Upstream for Greater Impact. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Light, P. C. 2004. Sustaining Nonprofit Performance: The Case for Capacity Building and the Evidence to Support It. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
Morley, E., Vinson, E., & Hatry, H. P. 2001. Outcome Measurement in Nonprofit Organizations:
Murray, V. (2005). Evaluating the effectiveness of nonprofit organizations. In R. Herman (Ed.),
The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management (2nd ed., pp. 345-370). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Oster, S. M. 1995. Strategic Management of Nonprofits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Plantz, M. C., Taylor Greenway, M., & Hendricks, M. (1997). Outcome measurement: Showing
results in the nonprofit sector. New Directions for Evaluation, 75, 15-30.
Poister, T. H. 2003. Measuring Performance in Public and Nonprofit Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rachel, L. (2006), Guidelines for Impact or Outcome Evaluation, World Bank.
Ritchie, J. and Kolodinsky, R. (2003). Nonprofit Organization Financial Performance Measurement: An Evaluation of New and Existing Financial Performance Measures, Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 13: 367-381.
Rojas, R. (2000). A Review of Models for Measuring Organizational Effectiveness Among For-Profit and Nonprofit Organizations, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11, 97–104.
Saul, J. 2004. Benchmarking for Nonprofits: How to Measure, Manage, and Improve Performance. St. Paul, Minnesota: Fieldstone Alliance.Ebrahim and Rangan, May 2010 47
Sawhill, J. C., & Williamson, D. 2001. Mission Impossible? Measuring Success in Nonprofit Organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11(3): 371-386.
Speckbacher, G. (2003). The economics of performance management in nonprofit organizations.
Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 13(3), 267-281.
United Way of America. 1996a. Measuring Program Outcomes: A Practical Approach. Alexandria, VA: United Way of America.
United Way of America. 2000. Agency Experiences with Outcome Measurement: Survey Findings (Report 0196). Alexandria, VA: United Way of America
Urban Institute, & Center for What Works. 2006. Building a Common Outcome Framework to Measure Nonprofit Performance. Washington, DC and Chicago, Illinois: Authors
White, H. 2009. We all agree we need better evidence. But what is it and will it be used? In M. W. Lipsey, & E. Noonan (Eds.), Better Evidence for a Better World: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), Working Paper 2.
Table 1
Charity/Financial Criteria Program Exp. Administrative Exp. Fundraising Exp. Fundraising Eff. Program Exp. Growth
Akron-Canton Regional 94.0% 2.5% 3.4% 0.03 10.8%
Foodbank
All Faiths Food Bank 91.9 3.1 4.8 0.04 11.1
Alameda County Community 95.4 1.6 2.9 0.02 8.2
Food Bank
America's Second Harvest 96.9 1.5 1.4 0.01 4.8
of the Big Bend
Anne Arundel County 93.7 4.0 2.1 0.02 0.5
Food Bank Inc
Arkansas Foodbank 96.7 2.0 1.1 0.01 7.4
Arkansas Rice Depot 97.1 1.6 1,2 0.01 -27.4
Arvada Community Food 87.7 7,1 5.1 0.05 11.4
Bank
Atlanta Community Food 95.0 3.5 1.3 0.01 12.8
Bank
Charity/Financial Criteria Program Exp. Administrative Exp. Fundraising Exp. Fundraising Eff. Program Exp. Growth
Ballard Food Bank 93.5 2.9 3.5 0.02 5.5
The Billings Food Bank 99.2 0.5 0.2 0.01 4.2
Birch Community Services. 97.9 1.4 0.5 0.01 9.7
Blue Ridge Area Food 96.0 1.4* 2.4 0.02 3.2
Bank
Brazos Valley Food Bank 97.3 1.5 1.0 0.01 21.1
Bread of the Mighty Food 93.8 4.2 1.9 0.02 19.2
Bank
California Emergency 98.6 1.3 0.1 0.01 1.1
Foodlink
Capital Area Food Bank 93.2 3.2 3.5 0.03 11.8
Care and Share Food Bank for 95.5 2.0 2.4 0.02 8.8
Southern Colorado
Central Illinois Foodbank 97.5 1.4 1.0 0.01 10.0
Central Pennsylvania 96.9 1.3 1.6 0.01 15.8
Food Bank
Charity/Financial Criteria Program Exp. Administrative Exp. Fundraising Exp. Fundraising Eff. Program Exp. Growth
Channel One Regional Food 95.3 2.8 1.7 0.01 5.3
Bank
Chattanooga Area Food Bank 97.7 1.0 1.2 0.01 16.7
Circle Of Concern 85.4 10.9 3.5 0.03 -0.2
City Harvest 93.3 0.9 5.7 0.05 9.6
Clark County Food Bank 96.3 1.7 1.8 0.01 20.7
Colonial Heights Food Pantry 91.8 3.6 4.5 0.04 6.2
Community Food Bank 97.7 1.1 1.1 0.01 25.3
Community Food Bank of 96.6 1.2 2.0 0.03 8.1
Eastern Oklahoma
Community Food Bank of 96.2 0.9 2.8 0/02 8.5
Southern Arizona
Community Food Share 94.8 2.3 2.7 0.02 5.7
Community FoodBank of New 95.3 2.9 1.7 0.01 3.0
Jersey
Charity/Financial Criteria Program Exp. Administrative Exp. Fundraising Exp. Fundraising Eff. Program Exp. Growth
Community Harvest Food Bank 97.2 1.2 1.5 0.01 -4.9
of NE Indiana
Community Soup Kitchen and` 85.9 11.2 2.7 0.02 9.5
Outreach Center Inc.
Connecticut Food Bank 95.5 2.3 2.1 0.02 10.0
Dare to Care Food Bank 94.9 1.9 3.1 0.03 10.8
East Texas Food Bank 95.2 2.1 2.6 0.02 4.8
Eastern Illinois Foodbank 95.4 1.6 2.8 0.02 9.8
Elk Grove Food Bank Services 96.1 2.2 1,6 0.01 13.5
Emergency Food Network 97.4 1.1 1.4 0.01 4.6
Facing Hunger 96.3 2.3 2.3* 0.02 1.7
Fairbanks Community 74.8 15.0 10.0 0.13 8.8
Food Bank Service
Farmers and Hunters 89.4 5.7 4.8 0.05 -7.2
Feeding the Hungry
Feed My People 90.8 7.0 2.0 0.02 4.8
Feeding America EW 97.0 0.9 2.0 0.02 4.9
Charity/Financial Criteria Program Exp. Administrative Exp. Fundraising Exp. Fundraising Eff. Program Exp. Growth
Feeding America 96.4 1.5 1.9 0.02 2.0
Southwest Virginia
Feeding America West 98.2 0.8 0.8 0.01 6.8
Michigan Food Bank
Feeding America's 99.1 0.7 0.1 0.01 -17.0
Hungry Children
Feeding South Dakota 96.0 1.3 2.0 0.02 3.5
Feeding South Florida 98.3 0.8 0.8 0.01 7.1
Feeding Tampa Bay 99.1 0.3 0.5 0.01 16.1
Feeding the Gulf Coast 96.5 2.3 1.1 0.01 1.1
FeedMore 95.3 1.6 2.9 0.03 5.4
Flathead Food Bank 94.3 3.3 2.2 0.03 4.3
Food Bank Coalition of San 94.5 2.2 3.2 0.03 8.3
Luis Obispo County
The Food Bank for Central 97.9 0.7 1.3 0.01 5.4
& Northeast Missouri
Food Bank for Larimer County 96.1 1.5 2.2 0.02 4.6
Charity/Financial Criteria Program Exp. Administrative Exp. Fundraising Exp. Fundraising Eff. Program Exp. Growth
Food Bank for Monterey 94.3 3.8 1.7 0.01 12.1
County
Food Bank for New York City 90.5 5.8 3.6 0.03 5.9
Food Bank for the Heartland 96.3 1.7 1.8 0.02 10.3
Food Bank for Westchester 87.5 4.3 8.1 0.09 6.1
Food Bank of Alaska 95.5 2.9 1.4 0.01 8.5
Food Bank of Central & 97.0 0.8 2.1 0.02 7.6
Eastern North Carolina
The Food Bank of Central 92.8 3.2 3.8 0.03 4.8
Louisiana
Food Bank of Central New 96.4 1.8 1.6 0.01 3.6
York
Food Bank of Contra Costa 95.8 0.8 3.2 0.03 9.3
and Solano
Food Bank of Corpus Christi 94.5 3.7 1.6 0.01 9.4
Charity/Financial Criteria Program Exp. Administrative Exp. Fundraising Exp. Fundraising Eff. Program Exp. Growth
Food Bank of Delaware 91.3 3.5 5.0 0.05 5.6
Food Bank of Eastern 97.6 1.0 1.2 0.01 9.5
Michigan
Food Bank of El Dorado 92.9 4.9 2.1 0.02 7.4
County
Food Bank of Lincoln 95.4 2.1 2.4 0.02 2.9
The Food Bank of Lower 95.9 2.1 1.8 0.01 -8.9
Fairfield County
Food Bank of North 92.5 2.8 4.5 0.05 12.9
Central Arkansas
Food Bank of Northeast 97.1 1.5 1.2 0.01 -2.8
Georgia
Food Bank of Northeast 96.8 1.5 1.5 0.01 1.8
Louisiana Inc.
Food Bank of Northern 92.2 4.0 3.7 0.04 -5.2
Indiana
Food Bank of Northern 92.2* 4.4 3.2 0.03 2.8
Nevada
Charity/Financial Criteria Program Exp. Administrative Exp. Fundraising Exp. Fundraising Eff. Program Exp. Growth
Food Bank of Northwest 94.3 3.4 2.2 0.02 1.4
Indiana
Food Bank of Northwest 94.8 3.3 1.7 0.01 11.9
Louisiana
Food Bank of Siouxland 98.6 0.6 0.6* 0.01 10.8
Food Bank of South Jersey 90.0 3.6 6.3 0.07 4.8
Food Bank of the Albemarle 96.9 1.5 1.4 0.01 2.7
The Food Bank of the 94.1 3.3 2.4 0.02 2.8
Golden Crescent
Food Bank of the Rio 97.7 1.2 0.9 0.01 47.4
Grande Valley, Inc.
Food Bank of the Rockies 96.9 1.0 2.0 0.02 9.3
Food Bank of West Central 94.7 2.8 2.3 0.02 -0.1
Texas
The Food Bank of Western 92.8 2.8* 4.2 0.04 9.6
Massachusetts
Food Bank of Western New 94.5 2.9 2.4 0.02 10.5
York, Inc.
Charity/Financial Criteria Program Exp. Administrative Exp. Fundraising Exp. Fundraising Eff. Program Exp. Growth
Food Finders 98.4 0.6 0.8 0.01 5.7
Food Finders Food 93.8 3.1 3.0 0.03 8.1
Bank, Inc.
Food for Lane County 93.5 2.5 3.8 0.03 1.1
Food for Others 92.3 4.3 2.3 0.02 -0.4
Food for People 94.6 2.0 3.2 0.03 7.9
Food Gatherers 94.5 3.1 2.3 0.02 10.6
The Food Group 90.6 4.3 4.9 0.07 1.8
Food Lifeline 95.9 1.6 2.3 0.03 7.9
Food Pantry of Waukesha 94.1 3.8 2.0 0.02 3.9
County
FOOD Share 93.4 2.1 4.3 0.04 5.7
The Foodbank 94.9 2.9 2.0 0.02 13.6
Foodbank of Santa 90.1 4.3 5.4 0.05 12.7
Barbara County
Foodbank of 95.1 1.1 3.7 0.03 5.7
Southeastern Virginia
Charity/Financial Criteria Program Exp. Administrative Exp. Fundraising Exp. Fundraising Eff. Program Exp. Growth
The Foodbank of 99.6 0.1 0.1 0.01 7.0
Southern California
Foodlink 96.6 1.6 1.7 0.01 5.6
FoodLink for Tulare County 98.5 0.7 0.7* 0.01 -8.0
Foodshare 94.5 2.2 3.1 0.03 -0.7
Forgotten Harvest 95.9 1.1 2.9 0.03 -2.4
Fredericksburg Area Food 93.4 2.0 4.0 0.04 4.6
Bank
FreeStore FoodBank 94.5 2.9 2.4 0.02 -1.1
Fulfill 95.5 1.2 3.2 0.03 11.4
Gleaners Community Food 94.0 1.3 4.6 0.04 6.2
Bank of Southeastern
Michigan
Gleaners Food Bank of 94.7 0.7 4.5 0.04 3.6
Indiana, Inc.
God's Pantry Food Bank 96.0 1.6 2.2 0.02 4.9
Golden Harvest Food Bank 95.7 1.9 2.2* 0.02 6.7
Charity/Financial Criteria Program Exp. Administrative Exp. Fundraising Exp. Fundraising Eff. Program Exp. Growth
Good Shepherd Food 96.0 1.4 2.5 0.02 19.2
Bank of Maine
Greater Baton Rouge 94.4 1.5 4.0 0.03 1.8
Food Bank
Greater Berks Food Bank 96.4 1.6 1.8 0.01 11.5
The Greater Boston FB 92.9 4.2 2.8 0.02 5.6
Greater Chicago Food 93.2 3.3 3.4 0.03 4.8
Depository
Greater Cleveland Food Bank 95.2 1.6 3.1 0.03 16.4
Greater Pittsburgh Community 94.4 3.3 2.2 0.02 2.9
Food Bank
Harry Chapin Food Bank of 96.4 0.8 2.6 0.02 8.4
Southwest Florida
Harvest Hope Food Bank 98.2 0.8 0.8 0.01 4.7
Harvest Texarkana 92.6 2.3 4.9 0.05 13.2
Harvesters: The Community 96.9 1.2 1.8 0.01 4.1
Food Network
Charity/Financial Criteria Program Exp. Administrative Exp. Fundraising Exp. Fundraising Eff. Program Exp. Growth
Hawaii Foodbank 94.9 1.9 3.0 0.03 1.4
Helena Food Share 90.4 3.6 5.9 0.05 9.9
Hidden Harvest 96.4 2.1 1.4 0.01 3.4
High Plains Food Bank 95.5 1.7 2.7 0.02 5.8
Houston Food Bank 96.3 1.8 1.7 0.01 6.8
Hunger Network of 96.3* 0.6 3.0 0.03 3.6
Greater Cleveland
Idaho Foodbank 94.9 1.7 3.2 0.03 12.3
Imperial Valley Food Pantry 94.5 3.2 2.1 0.02 -6.0
Interfaith Food Pantry 91.5 3.8 4.5 0.04 11.3
Island Harvest 95.1 1.9 2.8 0.02 4.3
Jacobs & Cushman San 93.9 1.7 4.2 0.04 21.5
Diego Food Bank
Just Food ***** Alert *****
Kalamazoo Loaves & Fishes 90.2 5.8 3.9 0.04 25.2
Kansas Food Bank 97.7 0.9 1.2 0.01 3.0
Kendall County Food Pantry ***** Alert *****
Charity/Financial Criteria Program Exp. Administrative Exp. Fundraising Exp. Fundraising Eff. Program Exp. Growth
Lakeview Pantry 85.7 8.2 6.0 0.05 0.8
Linn Benton Food Share 98.9 0.8 0.1 0.01 1.1
Loaves & Fishes 96.7 1.1 2.0 0.02 6.6
Community Services
Loaves and Fishes 88.6 7.4 3.8 0.04 13.6
Long Island Cares 93.0 4.2 2.6 0.02 4.1
Los Angeles Regional 97.2 0.6 2.0 0.02 7.6
Food Bank
Loudoun Hunger Relief 93.1 4.0 2.8 0.02 1.2
Lowcountry Food Bank 97.3 1.4 1.2 0.01 12.1
Manna Food Center 94.3 3.3 2.3 0.02 -1.1
Manna Food Pantries 87.0 8.1 4.7 0.04 -6.2
MANNA FoodBank 94.6 2.7 2.5 0.02 10.4
Manna on Main Street 85.6 6.8 7.5 0.07 36.2
Marion Polk Food Share 90.3 3.7 5.8 0.05 0.2
Charity/Financial Criteria Program Exp. Administrative Exp. Fundraising Exp. Fundraising Eff. Program Exp. Growth
Maryland Food Bank 91.8 3.2 4.8 0.04 14.2
Maui Food Bank 96.5 0.8 2.6 0.02 4.2
Mid-Ohio Foodbank 94.7 3.6 1.5 0.01 9.4
Mid-South Food Bank 95.9 1.5 2.5 0.02 2.5
Middle Georgia Community 96.3 1.7 1.9 0.02 45.7
Food Bank
Midwest Food Bank, NFP 99.2 0.5 0.1 0.01 38.7
Missoula Food Bank 92.8 6.0 1.1 0.01 9.1
Montana Food Bank Network 93.2 1.1 5.5 0.05 5.6
Montgomery Area Food Bank 98.6 0.6 0.6 0.01 2.5
North Country Food Bank, Inc. 96.1 2.0 1.8 0.02 16.1
North Helpline 96.1* 1.6 2.1 0.02 7.7
North Texas Food Bank 94.5 1.6* 3.7 0.03 12.1
Northampton Survival Center 88.9 4.7 6.3 0.06 2.4
Northeast Iowa Food Bank 96.7 1.2 2.0 0.02 17.1
Charity/Financial Criteria Program Exp. Administrative Exp. Fundraising Exp. Fundraising Eff. Program Exp. Growth
Northern Illinois Food Bank 97.7 0.6 1.5 0.01 10.1
Northwest Arkansas 96.3 2.3 2.3* 0.02 9.9
Food Bank
Northwest Harvest 94.3 2.0 3.6 0.03 8.9
Operation Food Search 98.2 0.4 1.2 0.01 0.1
Oregon Food Bank 93.3 2.0 4.6 0.04 4.1
Ozarks Food Harvest 96.0 1.8 2.0 0.02 8.0
Philabundance 91.0 3.9 4.9 0.05 3.1
The Redwood Empire 96.6 1.3 2.0 0.02 7.3
Food Bank
Regional Food Bank of 99.2 0.7 0.1 0.01 7.1
Oklahoma
Rhode Island Community 88.0 4.9 6.9 0.07 -3.3
Food Bank
River Bend Foodbank 97.5 1.3 1.1 0.01 17.6
River City Food Bank 85.6 6.4 7.8 0.08 13.8
River Food Pantry 97.0 1.3 1.5 0.01 20.3
Charity/Financial Criteria Program Exp. Administrative Exp. Fundraising Exp. Fundraising Eff. Program Exp. Growth
Roadrunner Food Bank 97.3 1.5 1.1 0.01 7.8
of New Mexico
Rock River Valley Pantry 96.4 2.2 1.3 0.01 6.7
Rotary First Harvest 98.8 0.4 0.7 0.01 3.5
St. Louis Area Foodbank 97.0 1.3 1.5 0.01 6.5
St. Mary's Food Bank Alliance 95.4 2.0 2.4 0.02 2.0
San Antonio Food Bank 97.7 1.2 1.0 0.01 5.3
SF-Marin Food Bank 96.2 1.1 2.6 0.02 2.0
SeaGate Food Bank 98.9 0.3 0.8 0.01 1.2
SeaShare 95.7 0.9 3.3 0.03 13.7
Second Harvest Community 96.5 0.9* 2.2 0.02 3.5
Food Bank
Second Harvest Food Bank 97.0 1.7 1.2 0.01 12.6
of Central Florida
Second Harvest Food Bank 96.3 1.4 1.6 0.01 -11.2
of East Central Indiana
Second Harvest Food Bank ET 95.6 1.1 3.2 0.03 2.2
Charity/Financial Criteria Program Exp. Administrative Exp. Fundraising Exp. Fundraising Eff. Program Exp. Growth
Second Harvest Food Bank 95.4 1.8 2.6 0.02 8.9
Of Greater New Orleans
and Acadiana
Second Harvest Food Bank 97.5 0.7 1.6 0.01 7.7
of Metrolina
Second Harvest Food Bank 96.1 1.0 2.7 0.04 5.3
of Middle Tennessee
Second Harvest Food Bank 95.1 1.2 3.6 0.03 6.2
of North Central Ohio
Second Harvest Food Bank 96.7 2.0 1.2 0.01 13.1
of Northeast Tennessee
Second Harvest Food Bank 97.3 1.3 1.2* 0.01 12.4
of Northwest North Carolina
Second Harvest Food Bank 97.1 1.5 1.3 0.01 2.0
of Northwest Pennsylvania
Second Harvest Food Bank 95.3 2.0 2.6 0.02 7.9
of Santa Clara and San
Mateo Counties
Charity/Financial Criteria Program Exp. Administrative Exp. Fundraising Exp. Fundraising Eff. Program Exp. Growth
Second Harvest Food Bank 95.2 1.6 3.0 0.03 2.4
Santa Cruz County
Second Harvest Foodbank 93.7 2.6 3.6 0.03 7.4
of Southern Wisconsin
Second Harvest Foodbank 96.9 1.0 2.0 0.02 8.2
of Mahoning Valley
Second Harvest Heartland 94.8 2.1 3.0 0.03 1.0
Second Harvest Inland 98.8 0.5 0.6 0.01 20.6
Northwest
Second Harvest Northern 96.6 1.4 1.8 0.02 5.3
Lakes Food Bank
Shared Harvest Foodbank 94.8 2.1 3.0 0.03 1.0
The Society of St. Andrew 96.7 0.9 2.3 0.02 1.5
South Plains Food Bank 90.3 4.4 5.2 0.05 3.1
Southeast Missouri Food Bank 95.3 2.8 1.6 0.01 6.6
STEP 87.6 9.3 2.9 0.02 -0.3
Charity/Financial Criteria Program Exp. Administrative Exp. Fundraising Exp. Fundraising Eff. Program Exp. Growth
Sunshine Division – Portland 92.8 2.9 4.1 0.04 7.2
Police
Table to Table 97.9 0.7 1.3 0.01 12.2
Target Hunger 95.4 2.5 1.9 0.01 -11.4
Tarrant Area Food Bank 96.1 0.8 2.9 0.03 12.5
Thermal Belt Outreach 81.7 10.4 7.7 0.07 7.6
Ministries
Three Square 93.9 2.3 3.6 0.03 12.9
Toledo Northwestern 96.9 1.6 1.4 0.01 8.9
Food Bank
Treasure Coast Food Bank 97.6 1.6 0.7 0.01 8.3
United Food Bank 96.7 1.4 1.7 0.01 4.2
United Food Bank and 95.6 1.8 2.4 0.02 26.1
Services of Plant City
University District 91.7 2.0 6.2 0.05 1.1
Food Bank
Utah Food Bank 95.6 2.1 2.1* 0.02 1.1*
Charity/Financial Criteria Program Exp. Administrative Exp. Fundraising Exp. Fundraising Eff. Program Exp. Growth
Valley Interfaith Community 86.9 10.5 2.4 0.02 2.9
Resource Center
Vermont Foodbank 91.0 3.1 5.8 0.05 13.6
Virginia Peninsula Foodbank 96.9 0.8 2.1 0.02 4.2
Volunteers Enlisted to Assist 95.2 2.8 1.9 0.02 20.5
People
Weld Food Bank 98.1 0.3 1.4 0.01 11.9
West Seattle Food Bank 94.5 1.7 3.6 0.03 6.2
West Suburban Community 90.9 4.3 4.7 0.04 -2.0
Pantry
West Texas Food Bank 93.4 3.7 2.8 0.02 6.5
Westmoreland County FB 95.4 1.7 2.7 0.02 3.
Wichita Falls Area Food Bank 95.2 3.1 1.5 0.01 8.3
Willmar Area Food Shelf 95.3 3.2 1.3 0.01 25.5
Worcester County Food Bank 95.3* 1.4 3.2 0.03 5.7
Yad Ezra 89.3 5.4 5.2 0.04 4.7
Table 2
Rankings of 30 Top and Bottom Nonprofits by Program Expenses, Fundraising Efficiency and Program Growth
Program Expenses
Top 30 (31 included due to multiple nonprofits at 97.5%)
Billings Food Bank Birch Community Services California Emergency Foodlink
Central Illinois Foodbank Chattanooga Area Food Bank Community Food Bank
Feeding America West Michigan Feeding America’s Hungry Children Feeding Tampa Bay
Food Bank for Central & NE MO Food Bank of Eastern Michigan Food Bank of Siouxland
Food Bank of Rio Grande Valley Food Finders Foodbank of Southern California
Harvest Hope Food Bank Kansas Food Bank Linn Benton Food Share
Midwest Food Bank Montgomery Area Food Bank Southern Illinois Food Bank
Operation Food Search Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma River Bend Food Bank
Rotary First Harvest San Antonio Food Bank SeaGate Food Bank
Second Harvest Food Bank Second Harvest Inland Northwest Table to Table
(Metrolina) Weld Food Bank
Bottom 30
Arvada Community Food Bank Circle of Concern Community Soup Kitchen &
Outreach Center
Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry
Fairbanks Community Food Bank Feed My People Food Bank of New York City
Food Bank for Westchester Food Bank of Delaware Food Bank of South Jersey
The Food Group Food Bank of Santa Barbara County Helena Food Share
Interfaith Food Pantry Kalamazoo Loaves and Fishes Lakeview Pantry
Loaves and Fishes Manna Food Pantries Manna on Main Street
Marion Polk Food Share Northampton Survival Center Philabundance
Rhode Island Community Foodbank South Plains Food Bank STEP
Thermal Belt Outreach Ministries University District Food Bank Valley Interfaith Community
Resource Center
Vermont Foodbank Yad Ezra
Administrative Expenses
Top 30 (Lowest Administration Expenses as a % of total expense)
America’s Second Harvest The Billings Food Bank Birch Community Services
(Big Bend)
Birch Community Services Blue Ridge Area Food Bank Brazos Valley Food Bank
California Emergency Food Bank Central Illinois Food Bank Central Pennsylvania Food Bank
Community Food Bank Community Food Bank – Eastern
Oklahoma
Fundraising Expenses
Top 30
The Billings Food Bank Birch Community Services Brazos Valley Food Bank
California Emergency Foodlink Central Illinois Foodbank Community Food Bank
Feeding America W. Michigan Feeding America’s Hungry Children Feeding South Florida
Feeding Tampa Bay Feeding the Gulf Coast Foodbank of Souixland
Food Bank of Rio Grande Valley Food Finders Foodbank of Southern California
FoodLink of Tulare County Harvest Hope Food Bank Kansas Food Bank
Linn Benton Food Share Midwest Food Bank, NFP Missoula Food Bank
Montgomery Area Food Bank Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma River Bend Foodbank
Roadrunner Food Bank of NM Rotary First Harvest San Antonia Food Bank
Seagate Food Bank Second Harvest Inland Northwest Treasure Coast Food Bank Bottom 30
Arvada Community Food Bank Bread of the Mighty Food Bank Circle of Concern
Community Soup Kitchen and Fairbanks Community Food Bank Farmers and Hunters Feeding the
Outreach Center Hungry
Feed My People Food Bank for New York City Food Bank for Westchester
Food Bank of El Dorado County Food Bank of Northern Nevada Food for Others
The Food Group Food Bank of Santa Barbara CT Kalamazoo Loaves and Fishes
Loaves and Fishes Long Island Cares Manna Food Pantries
Manna on Main Street Missoula Food Bank Northhampton Survival Center
Rhode Island Community Food River City Food Bank South Plains Food Bank
Bank
STEP Thermal Belt Outreach Ministries Valley Interfaith Community
Resource Center
Yad Ezra
Program Expense Growth
Top 30
Brazos Valley Food Bank Bread of the Mighty Food Bank Central PA Food Bank
Chattanooga Area Food Bank Clark County Food Bank Community Food Bank
Elk Grove Food Bank Services Feeding Tampa Bay Food Bank of the Rio Grande
Valley
The Foodbank Good Shephard Food Bank of Maine Greater Cleveland Food Bank
Harvest Texarkana Jacob and Cushman San Diego Food Bank Kalamazoo Loaves and
Fishes
Loaves and Fishes Manna on Main Street Maryland Food Bank
Middle Georgia Community FB Midwest Food Bank, NFP North Country Food Bank
Northeast Iowa Food Bank River Bend Foodbank River City Food Bank
River Food Pantry Seashare Second Harvest Inland NW
United Food Bank of Plant City Vermont Foodbank Volunteers Enlisted to Assist
People
Willmar Area Food Bank
Bottom 30
Anne Arundel County Food Bank Arkansas Rice Depot California Emergency
Foodlink
Circle of Concern Community Harvest FB of NE Indiana Farmers and Hunters Feeding
The Hungry
Feeding America’s Hungry Children Feeding the Gulf Coast Foodbank of Lower Fairfield
County
Foodbank of Northeast Georgia Foodbank of Northern Indiana Food Bank of West Central
Texas
Food for Others FoodLink for Tulare County Foodshare
Forgotten Harvest FreeStore FoodBank Imperial Valley Food Pantry
Linn Benton Food Share Manna Food Pantries Rhode Island Community
Food Bank
Seagate Food Bank Second Harvest – East Central Indiana Shared Harvest Food Bank
STEP Target Hunger University District Food
Bank
Utah Food Bank West Suburban Community Pantry
Table 3
Multiple Measures Confirming Placement in Top- or Bottom-Performers, Number by Nonprofit
Top Performers
Billings Food Bank (2) Birch Community Services (2) Brazos Value Food Bank (1)*
Bread of the Mighty Food Bank (1)* California Emergency Foodlink (2) Central Illinois Foodbank (2)
Central PA Food Bank (1) Chattanooga Area Food Bank (1) Clark County Food Bank (1)
Community Food Bank (3) Elk Grove Food Bank Services (1)* Feeding America W. Michigan (2)
Feeding America’s Hungry Feeding South Florida (1) Feeding Tampa Bay (2)
Children (2)
Feeding the Gulf Coast (1) Food Bank for Central & NE MO (1) Food Bank of Eastern Michigan (1)
Food Bank of Rio Grande Valley (2) Food Finders (2) The Foodbank (1)*
Foodbank of Souixland (1) Foodbank of Southern California (2) Foodlink of Tulare County (2)
Good Shephard Food Bank of Greater Cleveland Food Bank (1)* Harvest Hope Food Bank (2)
Maine (1)*
Harvest Texarkana (1) * Jacob and Cushman San Diego FB (1)* Kalamazoo Loaves and Fishes (1)*
Kansas Food Bank (2) Loaves and Fishes (1)* Linn Benton Food Share (2)
Manna on Main Street (1)* Maryland Food Bank (1)* Middle GA Community FB (1)
Midwest Food Bank, NFP (2) Missoula Food Bank (1) Montgomery Area Food Bank (2)
North Country Food Bank (1) Northeast Iowa Food Bank (1)* Operation Food Search (1)
Regional Food Bank – Oklahoma (2) River Bend Foodbank (2) River City Food Bank (1)*
River Food Pantry (1)* Roadrunner Food Bank of NM (1) Rotary First Harvest (2)
San Antonio Food Bank (2) Seagate Food Bank (1) Seashare (1)*
Second Harvest Inland NW (1)* Second Harvest Food Bank (Metrolina) (1) Second Harvest Inland Northwest (2)
Table to Table (1) Southern Illinois Food Bank (1) Treasure Coast Food Bank ((1)
United Food Bank of Plant City (1) Vermont Food Bank (1) Volunteers Enlisted to Assist People (1)*
Weld Food Bank (1) Wilmar Area Food Bank (1)*
*Appears on top 30 for revenue growth only
Bottom Performers
Anne Arundel County Food Bank* Arkansas Rice Depot* Arvada Community Food Bank (2)
Bread of the Mighty Food Bank California Emergency Foodlink* Circle of Concern (3)
Community Soup Kitchen & Community Harvest Food Bank of NE Farmers and Hunters Feeding
Outreach Center (2) Indiana the Hungry (3)
Fairbanks Community Food Bank Feed My People (2) Feeding America’s Hungry Children*
Food Bank (2) Food Bank of New York City (2) Food Bank for Westchester (2)
Food Bank of Delaware Food Bank of El Dorado County Food Bank of Northern Nevada
Food Bank of South Jersey Food Bank of West Central Texas* Food for Others (2)
The Food Group (2)
Food Bank of Santa Barbara Foodbank of Lower Fairfield County* Foodbank of Northeast Georgia*
County (2)
Foodbank of Northern Indiana* Helena Food Share Imperial Value Food Pantry*
Interfaith Food Pantry Kalamazoo Loaves and Fishes (2) Lakeview Pantry
Linn Benton Food Share* Loaves and Fishes (2) Long Island Cares
Manna Food Pantries (2) Manna on Main Street (2) Marion Polk Food Share
Missoula Food Bank Northampton Survival Center (2) Philabundance
River City Food Bank Rhode Island Community Foodbank (3) South Plains Food Bank (2)
Second Harvest – EC Indiana* Shared Harvest Food Bank* STEP (3)
Target Hunger* Thermal Belt Outreach Ministries (2) University District Food Bank (2)
Utah Food Bank* Valley Interfaith Community Vermont Foodbank
Resource Center (2)
Yad Ezra (2)
Table 4
Impact Analysis for Selected Nonprofits for Listed in Table 3 under Top 30 Performers, Self-Reported
Measure Dollars per Unit
Nonprofit Food Distributed Number Served Expenditure Food Distributed Number Served
Billings Food Bank NA NA NA NA
Birch Community Services NA 9.5 million $13.4 m NA $1.41
Brazos Valley Food Bank NA NA NA NA
Bread of the Mighty NA NA NA NA
California Emergency Foodlink 62 m lbs. NA $38.7 m 0.62 NA
Central Illinois Foodbank NA NA NA NA
Central Pennsylvania Foodbank 48 m. lbs. 40 million $57.7 m $1.20 $1.44
Chattanooga Area Food Bank NA NA NA NA
Clark County Food Bank 6.6 m lbs. 5.5 million $9.6 m $1.45 $1.75
Community Food Bank NA NA NA NA
Elk Grove Food Bank NA NA NA NA
Feeding America – West Michigan NA NA NA NA
Feeding America’s Hungry Children 23 m lbs. No Financial Data
Feed South Florida 46 m lbs. NA $75.1 m $1.63 NA
Feeding Tampa Bay NA 700,000 $4.9 m NA $7.00
Feeding the Gulf Coast NA NA NA NA
Food Bank for Central and NE Missouri 32 m lbs. 1.2 m $59.6 m $1.86 $49.67
Food Bank for Eastern Michigan NA 331,000 $57.2 m NA Error
Food Bank of Rio Grande Valley NA NA NA NA
Food Finders 1.2 m lbs. NA $11.7 m $9.75 NA
Foodbank of Siouxland NA NA NA NA
Foodbank of South California 22.9 m lbs. 250,000 $78.1 m $3.41 Error
Foodlink of Tulare County NA NA NA NA
Good Shepherd Foodbank of ME NA NA NA NA
Greater Cleveland Food Bank NA 55 m. $85.4 m NA $1.55
Harvest Hope Food Bank 27.5 m. lbs. 2.1 m. No 990 ---- -------
Harvest Texarkana NA NA NA NA
Jacob and Cushman San Diego Food Bank 22.0 m lbs. 370,00 $32.3 m $1.47 $87.3
Kalamazoo Loaves and Fishes 3.2 m lbs. No data ------ NA
Kansas Food Bank NA 12.0 m $18.8 m NA $1,55
Loaves and Fishes NA 696,000 $2.8 m NA $4.02
Linn Benton Food Share NA NA NA NA
Manna on Main Street NA 37,300 No data ------ -----
Maryland Food Bank NA 540,000 $73.0 m NA $135.20
Middle GA Community Food Bank NA NA NA NA
Midwest Food Bank NFP NA NA NA NA
Missoula Food Bank NA 49,000 $3.3 m NA $67.3
Montgomery Area Food Bank 12.3 m lbs. NA $32 m $2.60 NA
North Country Food Bank 7.4 m lbs. NA $9.6 m $1.30 NA
Operation Food Search NA 2.4 m $31.7 m NA $13.21
Regional Food Bank – Oklahoma NA NA NA NA
River Bend Food Bank NA NA NA NA
River City Food Bank 1.6 m lbs. NA $2.1 m $1.31 NA
River Food Panty 2.3 m lbs. NA $4.9 m $2.13 NA
Roadrunner Food Bank 32.3 m lbs. NA $62.6 m $1.84 NA
San Antonio Food Bank NA 74.0 m $129.1 m NA $1.74
Seagate Food Bank NA NA NA NA
Seashare NA NA NA NA
Second Harvest Inland NW* NA NA NA NA
Second Harvest Food Bank Metrolina* NA NA NA NA
Table to Table NA 19.0 m $24.1 m NA $1.27
Southern Illinois Food Bank NA 65.5 m $132.0 m NA $2.02
Treasure Coast Food Bank NA NA NA NA
United Food Bank of Plant City NA NA NA NA
Vermont Food Bank 11.7 m lbs. NA $24.9 m $2.13 NA
Volunteers Enlisted to Assist People 3.4 m lbs. NA $9.9 m $2.91 NA
Weld Food Bank 13.9 m lbs. NA $21.7 m $1.56 NA
Willmar Area Food Bank NA NA NA NA
Table 5
Impact Analysis for Selected Nonprofits for Listed in Table 3 under Bottom 30 Performers, Self-Reported
Measure Dollars per Unit
Nonprofit Food Distributed Number Served Expenditure Food Distributed Number Served
Anne Arundel County Food Bank NA NA NA NA
Arkansas Rice Depot NA NA NA NA
Arvada Community Food Bank NA NA NA NA
Bread of the Mighty Food Bank 0.6 m lbs. 0.3 m $7.4 m
California Emergency Foodlink NA NA NA NA
Circle of Concern NA NA NA NA
Community Soup Kitchen and Outreach 0.4 m lbs. 0.08 m $2.2 m $5.50 $27.50
Community Harvest FB of NE Indiana 13.1 m lbs. NA $19.7 m $1.50 NA
Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry Website Not Functioning
Fairbanks Community Food Bank NA NA NA NA
Feeding America’s Hungry Children Website Not Functioning
Food Bank of New York City NA 62 m. $82.2 m NA $1.33
Food Bank for Westchester County 8.4 m lbs. NA $13.7 m $1.63 NA
Food Bank of Delaware 8.0 m lbs. NA $19.9 m $2.49 NA
Food Bank of El Dorado County NA NA NA NA
Food Bank of Northern Nevada NA 13.3 m $30.6 m NA $2.30
Food Bank of South Jersey 12 m. lbs. NA $17.5 m $1.46 NA
Food Bank of West Central TX 3 m lbs. NA $6.4 m $2.13 NA
Food for Others NA NA NA NA
The Food Group NA 6 m $10.6 m NA $1.77
Food Bank of Santa Barbara County 9.7 m lbs. NA $18.5 m $1.91 NA
Food Bank of Lower Fairfield County 1.2 m lbs. NA $3.3 m $2.75 NA
Food Bank of Northeast Georgia 12.0 m lbs. NA $21.4 m $1.78 NA
Food Bank of Northern Indiana NA NA NA NA
Helena Food Share 1.7 m. lbs. NA $3.2 m $1.88 NA
Imperial Valley Food Pantry 3.8 m lbs. 0.24 m $3.8 m $1.00 $15.83
Interfaith Food Pantry .1.0 m lbs. 0.84 m $3.6 m $3.60 $4.29
Kalamazoo Loaves and Fishes Inconsistent Impact Data
Lakeview Pantry NA NA NA NA
Linn Benton Food Share NA 0.29 m $22.6 m NA $77.93
Loaves and Fishes 3.85 m. lbs NA $12.8 m $3.32 NA
Long Island Cares NA NA NA NA
Manna Food Pantries NA NA NA NA
Manna on Main 14.6 m lbs NA $2.2 m $0.15 NA
Marion Polk Food Share NA 0.54 m $12.6 m NA $23.33
Missoula Food Bank 1.6 m lbs. NA $3.3 m $2.06 NA
Northampton Survival Center 0.8 m lbs. NA No Form 990 NA NA
Philabundance NA 25 m $48.0 m NA $1.92
River City Food Bank 1.6 m lbs. NA $2.1 m $1.31 NA
Rhode Island Community Food Bank 9.5 m lbs 0.68 m $16.3 m $1.72 $23.97
South Plains Food Bank NA NA NA NA
Second Harvest – EC Indiana Organization’s impact embedded with other Second Harvest entities
Shared Harvest Food Bank NA 0.42 m $9.5 m NA $22.62
STEP* 0.64 m lbs NA $1.5 m $2.34 NA
Target Hunger NA NA NA NA
Thermal Belt Outreach NA NA NA NA
University District Food Bank 2.3 m lbs NA No financial data
Utah Food Bank NA NA NA NA
Valley Interfaith Resource Center** 0.27 m lbs NA $1.3 m $4.81 NA
Vermont Food Bank NA NA NA NA
Yad Ezra NA NA NA NA
*One of very few to do true impact analysis by individual program
** Full impact statement on websit
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- fairfield university
- fairbanks community food bank
- alaska department of health social services
- state of alaska
- fy 2015 project abstracts under the alaska native and
- university of alaska fairbanks
- agenda university of alaska system
- analysis of question 7
- fairbanks coordinated entry system protocols
- fort wainwright community
Related searches
- fairfield inn olentangy rd columbus
- fairfield inn gadsden al
- fairfield inn and suites olentangy river road
- cardiac physicians of fairfield county
- fairfield inn olentangy
- fairfield dodge danville pa
- bigelow tea company fairfield ct
- bigelow tea fairfield ct
- best cardiologist in fairfield county
- cardiac associates fairfield ct
- cardiologists of fairfield county
- cardiology associates fairfield ct