Permian Basin Area Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
752295008
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Midland, Texas, US
Phone
(432) 617-3213
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Community Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$60,538,071
Expenses
$20,523,099
Assets
$391,063,630
Liabilities
$8,023,885

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Guy McCrary (President and CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Guy McCrary (President and CEO): $475,435 total reported compensation
  • Cyndi Vara (Chief Financial Officer): $301,305 total reported compensation
  • Jennifer Steadman (Chief Operating Officer): $188,462 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Permian Basin Area Foundation exists to partner with donors in creating permanent charitable funds to enrich the quality of life in West Texas communities.

What it reported doing in 2025

Community education includes general outreach to advance the mission of the Foundation and philanthropy in West Texas. Such activities include providing advice to nonprofits on best management practices and capacity building, making reports to nonprofit boards about endowments, and conducting educational events for nonprofits. During 2025, the Foundation conducted 39 education meetings and/or events with nonprofits.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 97% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 46.8%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 81.6%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $212.51 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 80%; rating input score 80; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99%; rating input score 99; 44th 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; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 66.1%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 19.05; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.1%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 4 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 46.8% of revenue deployed · 81.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $16.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $475K · 17 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.7M reported
  • Consistency: 38 of 41 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 170 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 166 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.