A Better Way Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
931190792
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Berkeley, CA, USA
Phone
5106010203
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Residential Care & Adult Day Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$14,933,122
Expenses
$14,785,357
Assets
$7,643,240
Liabilities
$5,430,250

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID CHANNER (PRESIDENT/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAVID CHANNER (PRESIDENT/CEO): $212,636 total reported compensation
  • SHARON BROWN (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $171,077 total reported compensation
  • ANNE GRASCOEUR (CHIEF PEOPLE OFFICER): $168,074 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 help children and families develop the insights, life skills and permanent relationships to promote their social, emotional, educational and economic well-being.

What it reported doing in 2024

Social services - social services - during 2024-25, our social services programs consisted of 4 different programs, the largest of which were the alameda county parent engagement program (pep) and the alameda county another road to safety (ars) program. Additional social services programs include, alameda county parent education services (pes), and santa cruz county parent partner program (scppp). The pep, pes and scppp are dedicated to improving outcomes for families navigating the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. Ars is an early intervention / differential response service for families who are at risk of having their children removed from their care due to child abuse and neglect safety concerns. The pes program is a parenting education service designed to equip parents involved in the child welfare system with a variety of parenting skills to increase the parent's capacity to better manage family issues.for fiscal year 2024-25, the pep program received a total of 149 families referred for services of which 99 families were enrolled and working towards reunification. Pep supported parents in 418 child family team meetings, facilitated 70 parent support groups which included 177 fatherhood and 711 parent leadership participants. This program also attended numerous other county team meetings, panels, committees, and workgroups and provided trainings to the community. Ars had a total of 277 families referred to services of which 185 cases were enrolled in the program. 176 of those ars families were closed successfully with goals met. 121 families receiving ars services reported they were satisfied. Scppp served a total of 31 families through our case management component who were working towards family reunification. Scppp facilitated 23 support groups with a total of 22 parent leadership participants. The pes program served 283 parents and successfully graduated 94 parents who completed the curriculum series. 94 parents reported improvement of their parenting skills and overall family functioning. 94 parents reported they were satisfied with the class instruction they received.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 99% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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.
  • 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.7%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 85.5%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $230.95 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: 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: 1%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.52; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.71; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.3%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.7% of revenue deployed · 85.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $12.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $213K · 19 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $829K reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.