A Different Path
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 830910316
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2021
- Location
- Sacramento, CA, USA
- Phone
- 9163955023
- Rating
- 36
- Verdict
- REVIEW
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Human Service Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $246,587
- Expenses
- $212,111
- Assets
- $252,702
- Liabilities
- $218,226
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
26 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- AHISHA LEWIS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- AHISHA LEWIS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $62,328 total reported compensation
- CHANISE HENDRIX (CLINICAL OVERSIGHT): $44,250 total reported compensation
- SHONTA LEWIS (COMPLIANCE OVERSIGHT): $20,246 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
As a community-based nonprofit organization, A Different Path focuses on supporting the Greater Sacramento region's historically marginalized communities. ADP is rooted in the foundation of Faith, Hope, and Change. Our goal is to educate individuals and groups on topics surrounding mental health, and trauma experiences which affect low income and underprivileged populations that are possibly at risk. Our staff strives to ensure that trauma impacted youth, adults and/or families learn to engage in effective problem-solving strategies to ensure positive outcomes, increase emotional vocabulary, and self-awareness that contributes to self-esteem and self-confidence.
What it reported doing in 2024
TICRT Mental Health - ADP provided clinical and compliance oversight to ensure therapeutic services delivered under a Sacramento County contract met regulatory and reporting standards. Activities included documentation review, service reconciliation, client satisfaction tracking, quarterly reporting, and supervisory oversight to maintain quality of care and contract compliance.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 98% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 21
- Sustainability: 45
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: Limited
- Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Limited
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 14%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.19; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.86; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 75.2%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 122.3% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 188.4% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $129K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $62K · 26 people listed
- Consistency: 11 of 12 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 26 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.