Nectar Community Investments Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043571892
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lawrence, MA, USA
Phone
9782582772
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,745,373
Expenses
$5,899,985
Assets
$24,176,225
Liabilities
$14,044,660

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MALIA LAZU (PRESIDENT)
  • GLYNN LLOYD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • GLYNN LLOYD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $229,975 total reported compensation
  • DAN PLOWDEN (CFO): $153,219 total reported compensation
  • ALEXANDRA NOVA (COO): $148,881 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Grow the assets and wealth of historically disinvested individuals and their communities by providing a combination of robust advice, resourced networks and capital in the merrimack valley and across Massachusetts.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization provides both capital and advisory services to enable underserved business owners to reach their full potential and build wealth for the owners, families, and communities. The organization offers a range of low-cost, flexible small business debt and equity capital products with training and technical assistance that address key financing challenges.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 61% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 87% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and liabilities are high compared with assets.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.4%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 75.7%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.8%; rating input score 99; 36th 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: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 12.5%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.1; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.58; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.3%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 28% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 25.1% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 24.7% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.4% of revenue deployed · 75.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $230K · 19 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $914K reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, 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: 6 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.