Project Bread-the Walk for Hunger Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
042931195
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
East Boston, MA, USA
Phone
6177235000
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Food Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$17,302,578
Expenses
$17,245,619
Assets
$13,128,439
Liabilities
$2,067,496

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ERIN MCALEER CROWLEY (PRESIDENT AND CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • ERIN MCALEER CROWLEY (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $372,242 total reported compensation
  • ELIZABETH GREENHALGH (CHIEF ADVANCEMENT OFFICER): $246,009 total reported compensation
  • SARAH CLUGGISH (CHIEF PROGRAM OFFICER/ASST CLERK): $214,249 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Project bread integrates expertise earned through directly serving individuals, research, advocacy, and community engagement for a comprehensive approach that achieves large scale, sustainable impact to prevent hunger.

What it reported doing in 2024

Direct serviceproject bread provides direct service to >30,000 households a year: trained counselors provide free, confidential, compassionate support in 180 languages by phone & live chat. >5,000 people experiencing food insecurity improve their health because of one-on-one case management services including funds for food, basic kitchen equipment, nutrition education & cooking classes. The bulk of project bread's healthcare system work is in partnership with select accountable care organizations and masshealth. These programs, the expertise of people with lived experience of food insecurity and project bread's research dept inform policy & advocacy initiatives to advance permanent systemic change.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 66% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 64% for direct work, and 36% 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.1%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 84.2%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.09 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th 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: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 96.9%; rating input score 97; 27th 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: 0.3%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.76; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.1% of revenue deployed · 84.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $14.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $372K · 22 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.2M reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 51 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 41 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.