American Breast Cancer Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
522031814
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Columbia, MD, USA
Phone
4107305105
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,213,337
Expenses
$2,729,245
Assets
$3,818,556
Liabilities
$24,343

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PAUL LOUBE (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
  • MINDY BERRY (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • MINDY BERRY (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $157,630 total reported compensation
  • PAUL LOUBE (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $110,891 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to provide education, access and financial assistance to aid in the early detection, treatment, and survival of breast cancer for underserved and uninsured individuals, regardless of age, race, or gender.

What it reported doing in 2024

Community partnership program - through these collaborations, the foundation strengthens community capacity and increases awareness of the importance of regular breast health screenings.breast cancer assistance program - during the fiscal year, abcf awarded grants to individuals nationwide, helping them obtain critical services that can lead to earlier diagnoses and better treatment outcomes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% 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.
  • 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 available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 36
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 41.3%; rating input score 41
  • Program expense ratio: 38.9%; rating input score 39
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.78 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 81.6%; rating input score 82; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -23.3%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.4; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.8%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.4% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 41.3% of revenue deployed · 38.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $158K · 10 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $352K reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 9 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.