Bettertogether Forever

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201329182
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Glendale, CA, USA
Phone
3239634299
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,397,241
Expenses
$1,149,596
Assets
$407,556
Liabilities
$11,376

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRISTY SCHILLING (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRISTY SCHILLING (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $80,000 total reported compensation
  • KERRY ARMSTRONG (ASSOC EXEC DIRECTOR): $19,067 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Described on schedule o

What it reported doing in 2024

Shelter intervention program - onsite program at the los angeles north central animal shelter where options are offered to people so they don't have to surrender their pets, and to help people get their pets out of the shelter. Services offered include a pet pantry of food and supplies, veterinary vouchers for illnesses, skin issues, ear infections, vaccinations, spay/neuter, medication, etc., emotional support animal assessment/certification, redemption fees and back licensing, connecting to other resources, completion of applications, translation and more. Preserving the human animal bond when families need each other most, reducing the number of pets born without families and entering the overcrowded shelter system and helping people become or remain housed with their pet companions.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 75% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.9%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 87.4%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 17.7%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.35; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.6%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.5% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71.9% of revenue deployed · 87.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $80K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 21 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 41/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.