Spur - San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
941498232
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4157818726
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,502,318
Expenses
$6,077,824
Assets
$14,403,847
Liabilities
$2,528,239

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

Leadership & pay

36 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE (PRESIDENT AND CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • ALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $380,370 total reported compensation
  • SUJATA SRIVASTAVA (HOUSING & PLANNING POLICY): $217,895 total reported compensation
  • HEATHER OLINTO (CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER): $187,494 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 supports good planning and good government in the san francisco bay area through research, education and advocacy.

What it reported doing in 2024

Policy: spur provides objective analysis of the following six policy areas:1) planning - leverage growth to create great neighborhoods 2) housing - increase the supply of housing that is affordable to everyone3) sustainability and resilience - build an environmentally just, carbon-neutral, and resilient region4) transportation - make walking, biking, and transit the safest and best mobility options5) governance - make government a force for good6) economy - allocate resources to meet the needs of the most disadvantaged communities

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 66.8%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 71.1%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.11 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.5%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.37; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.3%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.9% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 66.8% of revenue deployed · 71.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 30 of 30 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $380K · 36 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $697K reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 22/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 47/100.