Seward Neighborhood Group

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510166930
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Minneapolis, MN, USA
Phone
6123386205
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$145,919
Expenses
$121,552
Assets
$548,545
Liabilities
$47,889

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Mary Pumphery (Board President)
  • Andy Carroll (Board President)
  • Tami Traeger (Vice President)
  • Steve McCauley (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Mary Pumphery (Board President)
  • Andy Carroll (Board President)
  • Tami Traeger (Vice President)

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

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

Overview

Mission

Seward Neighborhood Group strives to strengthen civic participation in Seward by engaging, involving, and connecting a broad range of stakeholders through four overarching goals: Equity, Operational Sustainability, Engagement, Community Infrastructure.

What it reported doing in 2025

SNG holds regular community meetings and events, focused on neighborhood development issues (such as variances and licensing, infrastructure, neighborhood safety concerns, residents and business relationships), equity and diversity issues (working with renters, support of traditionally under-served residents), and other concerns that arise in Seward neighborhood. SNG works on community building initiatives, public safety and crime prevention, equitable engagement, environmental stewardship, and other issues. Programs include spring garage sale days, garden tour, the activities of the community development and history committees, and a neighborhood electronic newsletter.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% 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. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 66.4%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 75.9%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $20.81 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 20th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.7%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.51; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.8% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 66.4% of revenue deployed · 75.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $92K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.