Better Choices for Democracy
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 993918413
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Austin, TX, USA
- Phone
- 2023783334
- Rating
- 38
- Verdict
- REVIEW
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $502,271
- Expenses
- $118
- Assets
- $502,153
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Fred Garfield Robinette IV (President)
People named in this filing
- Fred Garfield Robinette IV (President)
- Wesley Holliday (Secretary)
- Eric Pacuit (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
When election rules make some voters matter more than others, candidates cater to those who matter at the expense of those who don't. Leaders who demonize some voters to please others divide our society. No society that rewards its leaders for dividing it can long survive.Better Choices is committed to rigorous research, impactful education, and bold action to build a political system where every voice matters.Better Choices advocates Consensus Choice Voting, an electoral reform that gives voters real choices of candidates by first holding an open qualifying election- without party restrictions-to determine at least four of the strongest candidates. In the general election, voters rank these candidates in order of preference. The candidate preferred by more voters in a given head-to-head matchup wins that matchup. The candidate who wins all head-to-head matchups is the Consensus Choice and therefore wins the election.Income and expenses in this short period are limited to moderate inve
What it reported doing in 2024
When election rules make some voters matter more than others, candidates cater to those who matter at the expense of those who don't. Leaders who demonize some voters to please others divide our society. No society that rewards its leaders for dividing it can long survive.Better Choices is committed to rigorous research, impactful education, and bold action to build a political system where every voice matters.Better Choices advocates Consensus Choice Voting, an electoral reform that gives voters real choices of candidates by first holding an open qualifying election- without party restrictions-to determine at least four of the strongest candidates. In the general election, voters rank these candidates in order of preference. The candidate preferred by more voters in a given head-to-head matchup wins that matchup. The candidate who wins all head-to-head matchups is the Consensus Choice and therefore wins the election.Income and expenses in this short period are limited to moderate investment income and expense derived from cash contribution amounts.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.
The verdict
REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 92
- Accountability: 30
- Sustainability: 97
- Growth: NotEnoughData
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; 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 100%; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 4,255.53; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st 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: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 11 of 11 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.