Partners for Better Futures

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
822274818
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Los Altos, CA, USA
Phone
4153174913
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Philanthropy, Charity, Voluntarism Promotion

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$754,095
Expenses
$699,499
Assets
$303,097
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Andrew Lederer (President)
  • Robert G Cornwell (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Naing Lin Swe (Country Director - Burma): $26,192 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Partners for Better Futures (PBF) helps improve the lives of poor people around the world, primarily focusing on children and education. PBF does this by partnering with local organizations that are deeply involved in their own communities, and participating in carefully evaluated projects and programs. There are three continuing programs within PBF: Build a School in Burma (BSB), Build a School in India (BSI), and APC School Philippines (APC). In FY 2025 BSB made grants for new buildings for several schools, and made grants for projects including water and sanitation systems, and solar lighting systems. BSI made grants to support education for underserved children in India. APC made grants to the APC School in the Philippines.

What it reported doing in 2025

The Build a School in India (BSI) program made several grants to increase access to education primarily to disadvantaged students in rural India. This included the following grants: Anandakshan; ASHA Action Self Reliance Hope; Cochlea Pune Hearing & Speech; Holistic Education Mission; Kiran Educational Trust - Foundation Academy; Mata Balak Utkarsha Pratishtha; Sondara; Spandan School; Srotoshwini Trust; and Unnatia Institute. Each of these organizations met India's strict criteria under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) The FCRA is the primary legal framework regulating how India's non-governmental organizations (NGOs), charities, and individuals receive and utilize foreign funding. Regulated strictly by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), the laws ensure that foreign funds are used for approved social, educational, religious, cultural, or economic purposes and do not impact national security.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 95% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 96
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 22
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.6%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 99.8%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: $539.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Pass
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Pass
  • Grant itemization coverage: 89%; rating input score 89; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 20%; rating input score 20; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.2%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.43; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.7%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.5% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.7% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 92.6% of revenue deployed · 99.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $698K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $26K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 40 of 41 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 20/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.