Brighter Bites Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474070026
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Houston, TX, USA
Phone
7132599498
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nutrition

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$15,759,947
Expenses
$15,948,524
Assets
$2,860,719
Liabilities
$870,178

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Richard Dachman (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Richard Dachman (CEO): $191,600 total reported compensation
  • Gouri Kulkami (Director of Finance): $129,012 total reported compensation
  • Mike Pomeroy (VP Operations): $113,970 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 create communities of health through fresh food. Brighter Bites seeks to improve health outcomes among children and families in under-resourced communities by using data-driven, evidence-based strategies for providing fresh produce and nutrition education.

What it reported doing in 2024

For eight weeks each in the fall, spring, and summer, Brighter Bites provides 1) Produce Distributions - two bags containing 50 servings (25 lbs) of fresh produce for participants to pick up and take home when they pick up their child at school; 2) Nutrition Education - we train and support teachers in schools, camps, and educational centers to implement evidence-based health nutrition education programs approved for classrooms across the United States. Parents receive weekly educational tools with their bags, including nutrition handbooks, recipes, and tips to demystify produce. All materials are available on the website, and 3) a Food Experience for the whole family, demonstrating colorful recipes, passing out samples that incorporate the week's fresh produce, and discussing healthy eating habits.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 56% for direct work, and 44% for 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.5%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 94.4%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: $30.51 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: -1.2%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.3; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.4%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 17.9% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.8% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.9% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.5% of revenue deployed · 94.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $15.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $192K · 12 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $399K reported
  • Consistency: 38 of 38 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.