Bienestar Is Wellbeing
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 993525656
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2023
- Location
- Redlands, CA, USA
- Phone
- 9174394579
- Rating
- 65
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Food Programs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $782,302
- Expenses
- $368,099
- Assets
- $435,944
- Liabilities
- $21,741
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
People named in this filing
- DAMIAN MAZZOTTA (Chair & Founder)
- VIEN LE (Treasurer)
- SCOTT REINER (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Bienestar is Well-Being has a mission of addressing hunger and food insecurity in underserved communities throughout California by providing sustainable access to healthy and nutritious food to those in need.
What it reported doing in 2024
Bienestar is Well-Being has a mission of addressing hunger and food insecurity in underserved communities throughout California by providing sustainable access to healthy and nutritious food to those in need.Bienestar is Wellbeing continued its partnership with Mahi International as fiscal sponsor for the Inland Empire Health Plan (IEHP) initiative, expanding access to nutritious food and health resources in underserved communities throughout California. Through this collaboration, the program distributed 12,476,693 pounds of free fresh produce, including fruits and vegetables donated by Food Forward, The Farmlink Project, and Sharing Excess. Distribution activities were tracked and documented by both 501(c)(3) organizations to ensure accurate reporting, transparency, and program accountability.Over the course of the year, more than 400 community distributions were organized at schools and community-based organizations across California. Distribution sites included communities such as El Centro, El Cajon, Perris, Moreno Valley, Riverside, San Bernardino, Compton, Watts, Boyle Heights, Chino, Rialto, Ontario, Redlands, Sylmar, Needles, Trona, Live Oak, Loma Rica, Napa, Oroville, Paradise, Roseville, Smartsville, Yuba City, and Sacramento, among others.These efforts helped provide access to healthy food for more than 150,000 individuals and families. In addition to food distribution, participants were connected to health education and supportive services through partnerships with Inland Empire Health Plan (IEHP) and Molina Healthcare, helping address food insecurity and other key social determinants of health.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 55
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 58
- Sustainability: 74
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 39%; rating input score 39
- Program expense ratio: 82.8%; rating input score 83
- Fundraising efficiency: $15.02 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 50; 50th 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: Limited
- 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: 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: 52.9%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.18; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 39% of revenue deployed · 82.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $305K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 39/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 50/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.