Spur Local Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205494704
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2028383015
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Support N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,129,870
Expenses
$1,020,616
Assets
$634,148
Liabilities
$191,734

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MATTHEW GAYER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MATTHEW GAYER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $123,651 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We work every day to create a stronger, more resilient dc region by expanding access for small nonprofits to knowledge, connections, and resources and engaging the local community.

What it reported doing in 2024

Our learning commons capacity-building program is in its 8th year. Each year, we train nearly 5,000 nonprofit staff who attend 90 webinars and workshops on fundraising, communications, volunteer engagement, board development, and other key topics. Spur local also builds community and peer-to-peer learning opportunities through our cohorts and leadership development coaching for executive directors and development professionals. Additionally, the grassroots accelerator program offers six months of in-depth support to organizations with budgets of 250k or less. Last year, 96 of participants said that the content was effective, 97 found it valuable, and 88 reported improved confidence as a result of their participation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 89% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 68.6%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 75.8%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.74 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 58.9%; rating input score 59; 30th 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.7%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.62; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.3; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.1%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 68.6% of revenue deployed · 75.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $774K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $124K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 32 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • 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 24/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.