Utahns for Responsive Government DBA Better Boundaries

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
821030846
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Phone
8019018253
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$502,964
Expenses
$313,414
Assets
$297,669
Liabilities
$9,801

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Timothy Chambless (Chairman)
  • Karen Shepherd (Director)
  • Ralph Becker (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

Utahns for a Responsive Government, DBA Better Boundaries mission is to create an independent redistricting process that utilizes voter-centric standards. We use education, advocacy, policy, and the justice system to reach our goal of fair, politically neutral maps for all. Utah's 2021 decennial redistricting process saw record participation and engagement among Utahns. The first ever statewide independent commission created politically neutral maps that kept cities, counties, and communities together whenever possible. Their process was fully transparent and took the input from Utahns from across the state. Unfortunately, the Utah State Legislature adopted highly partisan gerrymandered maps that slice and dice communities. Better Boundaries remains committed to our mission and we are financially supporting the lawsuit while continuing to educate and engage Utahns.

What it reported doing in 2024

Advocacy and Ballot Defense (Amendment D): In 2024, Better Boundaries led the statewide campaign to oppose Amendment D, a legislative proposal that would have weakened Utahs citizen initiative process and undermined the fair redistricting standards voters enacted through Proposition 4. The organization coordinates public education, volunteer mobilization, and coalition efforts that successfully challenged Amendment D in court, resulting in its removal from the ballot.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 64% for direct work, and 36% for grants.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 27
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 70
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 23.3%; rating input score 23
  • Program expense ratio: 37.5%; rating input score 37
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.48 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 37.7%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.95; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -15% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 23.3% of revenue deployed · 37.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $117K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 20/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.