Better Buying Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
834094508
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Arlington, TX, USA
Phone
3026905060
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Social Science

Reported finances

Revenue
$931,751
Expenses
$1,123,332
Assets
$377,789
Liabilities
$271,974

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARSHA DICKSON (PRESIDENT / DIR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARSHA DICKSON (PRESIDENT / DIR): $200,665 total reported compensation
  • KATHERINE HESS (HEAD OF PRODUCT): $138,152 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Better Buying Institute examines the way that business between buyers and their suppliers is carried out on a day-to-day basis, with the aim of transforming the purchasing practices commonly used in the consumer goods sector, so business relationships with suppliers support decent working conditions and reduce environmental impacts of production.

What it reported doing in 2024

CORE RESEARCH The majority of Better Buyings work is focused on independently gathering data andproviding insights to companies and the industry on potential risks that purchasingpractices are putting on supply chains and how to address those. Companies thatsubscribe to our Better Buying Purchasing Practices IndexTM (BBPPI) and Better Buying Partnership IndexTM (BBPI) can demonstrate that they are carrying out needed human rights due diligence and working to lessen their impacts on suppliers, workers, and the environment. There were 1,553 submissions in our BBPPI ratings cycle that took place in April and May 2024. A key finding from this ratings cycle was that Sporting Goods buyers performed better than Fashion Goods buyers across all purchasing practice categories, with particularly large differences in Planning and Forecasting, Design and Development, and Payment and Terms. The BBPI, that was carried out in October and November of 2024 and completed by 1,341 suppliers showed that the Softgoods score reached an all-time high of 52 with increases in 10 of the 12 partnership areas.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 92% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 48
  • Accountability: 65
  • Sustainability: 11
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 94.7%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 78.5%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.23 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -20.6%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.34; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.72; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 30.2%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24.7% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -11.1% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 94.7% of revenue deployed · 78.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $882K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $201K · 6 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.