Silver Spurs Alumni Association Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 050579958
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2017–2023
- Forms available
- Form 990 2023, Form 990-EZ 2016, Form 990-N 2012
- Location
- Austin, TX, USA
- Phone
- 5125895394
- Rating
- 66
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $534,761
- Expenses
- $468,011
- Assets
- $311,436
- Liabilities
- $119,574
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- PATRICK RYAN (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- PATRICK RYAN (PRESIDENT)
- MYRON BLALOCK (EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBER)
- BERT CONLY (EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBER)
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 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The primary purpose of the silver spurs alumni association is to support:1. Scholarships of the university of Texas at austin;2. The university of Texas at austin outreach programs such as the neighborhood longhorns program, an education incentive program that tutors local austin area youth in 3rd through 8th grade; and3. Expenses associated with the university of Texas mascot known as bevo.silver spurs alumni association is a separate entity from the Texas exes. Membership in the Texas exes does not translate to membership in silver spurs alumni association.
What it reported doing in 2023
The neighborhood longhorns program (nlp) is part of the department of athletics at the university of Texas at austin and is the official community service arm of Texas athletics. The program serves more than 5,500 students per year in 35 austin independent school district (aisd) schools. In partnership with aisd, the program serves economically disadvantaged youth in grades 2-8 who are at a high risk of experiencing academic difficulties
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 77% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 68% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 49
- Transparency & Controls: 84
- Accountability: 70
- Sustainability: 52
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 53.2%; rating input score 53
- Program expense ratio: 59.1%; rating input score 59
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 98.5%; rating input score 99; 46th 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- 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: 12.5%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.67; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.38; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 13.3% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 15.5% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 20.3% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 53.2% of revenue deployed · 59.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $277K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $124K reported
- Consistency: 16 of 18 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2017 to 2023
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
- 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.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.