Spur Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
472014980
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Marblehead, MA, USA
Phone
7814517787
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Philanthropy, Charity, Voluntarism Promotion

Reported finances

Revenue
$374,848
Expenses
$363,126
Assets
$264,886
Liabilities
$18,951

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LYNNE KRASKER SCHULTZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LYNNE KRASKER SCHULTZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $73,099 total reported compensation
  • BRYAN LAMOREAU (DIRECTOR OF VOLUNTEER ENGA): $59,733 total reported compensation
  • KIMBERLY NOTHNAGEL (DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS): $32,227 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Spur mobilizes volunteers in the meaningful service and enrichment opportunities that support the tangible needs of our community.in striving to remove barriers to volunteering, spur provides a platform to cultivate a community of doers across the north shore. We nurture the desire to make a difference .significant activities include student success drive, holiday cheer drive, meal service, volunteer activities and service learning.

What it reported doing in 2024

Holiday cheer provides hundreds of local childern identified through food shelter and school couselors with items on their wish list and winter essentials in a bundle of cheer. We also work with area shelters to provide meaningful essentials such as towels, sheets and toiletries to adults experiencing homelessness in lynn, marblehead, salem, and swampscott.

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 100% 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 - 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: 44
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.2%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 48.8%; rating input score 49
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.01 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.1%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.73; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 45.5%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.2% of revenue deployed · 48.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $177K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $73K · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 9/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.