Better Business Bureau Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
860006552
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Phone
6022641721
Rating
51
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$20,730,672
Expenses
$19,922,055
Assets
$14,697,817
Liabilities
$6,847,243

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

Leadership & pay

71 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MATTHEW M FEHLING (President & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • MATTHEW M FEHLING (President & CEO): $806,227 total reported compensation
  • JOHN G PONDER (VP & CAO): $513,549 total reported compensation
  • CHAD R FRANK (VP OF STRATEGY): $278,986 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 be the leader in advancing marketplace trust. The bureau accomplishes this by: creating a community of trustworthy businesses, setting standards for marketplace trust, encouraging and supporting best practices, celebrating role models, and denouncing substandard marketplace behavior.

What it reported doing in 2024

Setting and upholding high standards for fair and honest business behavior. Businesses that earn bbb accreditation contractually agree and adhere to the organizations high standards for trust. Incorporated locally in 1938, your bbb serves communities in southern California and central, northern and western Arizona and is supported by over 20,225 bbb accredited businesses. Bbb provides objective advice, free business reviews, charity reviews as well as educational information on topics affecting marketplace trust. Additionally, bbb provides free dispute resolution services, including mediation and arbitration, to realize its vision of a marketplace where buyers and sellers can trust each other.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 93% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 98.4%; rating input score 98; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.9%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.74; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.47; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 12% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 60 of 61 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $806K · 71 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 14 of 15 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.