Spruce Root Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
454295940
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Juneau, AK, USA
Phone
9075861512
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Economic Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,064,509
Expenses
$5,040,398
Assets
$38,810,332
Liabilities
$5,128,320

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRIS PEREZ (PRESIDENT, FINANCE COMMITTEE)
  • ALANA PETERSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ALANA PETERSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $200,371 total reported compensation
  • LAUREL STARK (FINANCE DIRECTOR): $138,917 total reported compensation
  • ASHLEY SNOOKES (CLIENT SERVICES DIRECTOR): $119,887 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

See schedule oto assist southeast alaskas people, businesses, and communities in reaching long-term economic, social, and environmental resilience, and improve economic conditions in southeast Alaska communities through innovation, sustainability and collaboration. The cdfi provides micro and small business loans to eligible borrowers in those communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

The sustainable southeast partnership (ssp) is a growing collaboration of organizations and individuals whose common goal is to empower southeast alaskan communities to strengthen cultural, ecological and economic prosperity, sustainability and resilience. We have come together to work collaboratively through this partnership because we believe that we can have greater impact by working together on the complex challenges associated with community sustainability than by working on our own.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 75% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, and 23% for 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 some related-organization disclosures are missing.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 82
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 37.4%; rating input score 37
  • Program expense ratio: 79.4%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $36.85 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th 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: 74.7%; rating input score 75; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 58.2%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.7; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.1%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 23.1% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 27% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 29.4% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 37.4% of revenue deployed · 79.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $200K · 10 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $315K reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 16 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 7 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 37/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.