Choosing the Best Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311496092
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2011–2016
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
7708033105
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Reproductive Health Care Facilities and Allied Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$51,083
Expenses
$29,647
Assets
$85,398
Liabilities
$6,634

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • John Lyman (Acting CEO & CFO)

People named in this filing

  • Billy Mitchell (Director)
  • John Lyman (Acting CEO & CFO)
  • Betsy Birkholz (Board Member)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Teacher training and curriculum implementation. Also, a peer leader program designed to train and equip upper high school students, who have a commitment to the abstinence message, to change the culture of their school to encourage healthy choices for a brighter future.

What it reported doing in 2016

We submitted for a new SRAE grant, we scored well but were not awarded and will apply at the next opportunity to do so. We also continue to support any groups that ask from our former grants.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 70% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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: 37
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 29.4%; rating input score 29
  • Program expense ratio: 50.6%; rating input score 51

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 42%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.88; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 84.3%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.6% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.2% per year; rating input score 0; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 29.4% of revenue deployed · 50.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $15K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2011 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 29/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.