Beyond Emancipation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 943219520
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Oakland, CA, USA
- Phone
- 5106677694
- Rating
- 66
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Foster Care
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,363,724
- Expenses
- $3,352,324
- Assets
- $1,162,755
- Liabilities
- $299,285
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- DINA GIBSON (HR DIRECTOR): $217,838 total reported compensation
- DAVID LEIMSIEDER (Executive Dir.): $187,936 total reported compensation
- JENNIFER FICK (IMPACT DIRECTOR): $125,106 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 support young people as they imagine and create their own life beyond foster care.
What it reported doing in 2024
Housing navigation program: b: e first piloted alameda county's housing navigation program (hnp) in2022, a program dedicated to providing housing navigation services toyouth aged 18-24 who are currently or at risk of being homeless. Infy24-25, 117 youth were enrolled in hnp, well exceeding our contractedgoal of enrolling 45 youth. These youth were supported with hnpworkshops and 1-1 coaching around navigation and application assistancefor transitional housing programs, conflict resolution via restorativecircles, budget and finance management, and connection to foster youthto independence housing vouchers.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 91% 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
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 58
- Transparency & Controls: 73
- Accountability: 86
- Sustainability: 11
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 70.7%; rating input score 71
- Program expense ratio: 49.7%; rating input score 50
- Fundraising efficiency: $4.01 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -41.8%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.35; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 18.8%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 70.7% of revenue deployed · 49.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $218K · 14 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 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 — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 50/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 13/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.