Girls on the Run Greater Boston

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
463532424
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Boston, MA, USA
Phone
5082931844
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,837,162
Expenses
$2,348,945
Assets
$3,142,578
Liabilities
$403,217

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CYNDI ROY GONZALEZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CYNDI ROY GONZALEZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $180,843 total reported compensation
  • PETER LOEB (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE & OPER): $143,819 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

An after-school program that uses the power of running to educate and prepare 3rd-8th grade girls for a lifetime of self-respect and healthy living through lessons that encourage positive, emotional, social, mental and physical development.

What it reported doing in 2025

Girls on the run uses running and other physical activities as a vehicle for teaching life skills and promoting health outcomes for 8 to 13 year-old girls. Each season, trained volunteer coaches implement the gotr 10 week curriculum through twice-weekly sessions that build character and resilience. The season concludes with a celebratory 5k event. Completing a 5k gives the girls a tangible sense of achievement as well as a framework for setting and achieving life goals.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, and 23% for 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72.5%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 86.3%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.14 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

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; 75th 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; 63rd 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: Fail
    • 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: 17.2%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.34; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.8%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 25.7% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 23.1% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 24.5% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 72.5% of revenue deployed · 86.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $181K · 20 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 36/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.