Pba Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 860875110
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2015
- Location
- Scottsdale, AZ, USA
- Phone
- 4802810424
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Public Foundations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $789,218
- Expenses
- $671,547
- Assets
- $932,185
- Liabilities
- $43,723
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- NINA DAILY (EXEC. DIR/SECRETARY): $326,235 total reported compensation
- LORI RAYHORN (CFO): $227,554 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Pba foundation supports charitable initiatives and the historical preservation of the beauty industry.
What it reported doing in 2024
Look good feel better is a non-medical, brand-neutral public service program that teaches beauty techniques to people with cancer to help them manage the appearance-related side effects of cancer treatment. The program includes lessons on skin and nail care, cosmetics, wigs and turbans, accessories and styling, helping people with cancer to find some normalcy in a life that is by no means normal. Thousands of volunteer beauty professionals support look good feel better. All are trained and certified by the look good feel better foundation, the american cancer society, and the professional beauty association at local, statewide, and national workshops. Other volunteer health care professionals and individuals also give their time to the program. The program is open to all women with cancer who are undergoing chemotherapy, radiation, or other forms of treatment. Annually, lgfb workshops are delivered through nationwide network of alliance partner hospitals and cancer centers, as well as through a live virtual workshop platform.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 88% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 78
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 67
- Sustainability: 60
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 82.4%; rating input score 82
- Program expense ratio: 96.4%; rating input score 96
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- 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: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 14.9%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.39; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.9%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 82.4% of revenue deployed · 96.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $647K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $326K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 47/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.