Women's Board of Pittsburgh

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
251667555
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Phone
4124273909
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$146,624
Expenses
$39,868
Assets
$171,150

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SUSAN BOYLE (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • SUSAN BOYLE (PRESIDENT)
  • MICHELLE GLEASON (VICE-PRESIDE)
  • MARY GRENEN (SECRETARY)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The women's board of pittsburgh was formed to lend financial support to the many non-profit organizations involved with children in the pittsburgh area. Members of the women's board of pittsburgh are committed to an annual benefit with the proceeds awarded to a different organization selected each year whose purpose is promoting the welfare and development of children.

What it reported doing in 2024

The women's board of pittsburgh donates funds raised to organizations whose purpose is promoting the welfare and development of children. The funds this year were raised to support six organizations, of which two were funded during the fiscal year ended may 31, 2025: fox families care and grow pittsburgh. Fox families care provides resources for youth and families, including counselors, nurses, teachers, administrators and strategic community partners. Grow pittsburgh supports food-growing initiatives and programs as a key way of improving the social, economic, environment, health and educational realities of the community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 91% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 26.4%; rating input score 26
  • Program expense ratio: 96.9%; rating input score 97

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 72.8%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.29; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.7% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 26.4% of revenue deployed · 96.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $39K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 26/100.