SVP Austin
Legal name: Svp Austin Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 854088798
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2024–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2020
- Location
- Austin, TX, US
- Phone
- 5126632448
- Rating
- 67
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Management & Technical Assistance
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $288,724
- Expenses
- $247,659
- Assets
- $187,745
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- LYNNE SKINNER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- LYNNE SKINNER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $101,063 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Amplifying the work of local nonprofits through pro bono professional services.
What it reported doing in 2025
Through the leadership of our executive director, our board and partners have provided significant contributions to our community:1. We have provided more than 1,100 hours of free or discounted professional advisory service to more than 45 nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations, in capacity building areas such as revenue generation, marketing and storytelling, financial strategy and operational efficiency.2. We provided all of our active partners with more than 2 dozen opportunities to learn about issues facing our community and to engage in collaboration and conversations with other social impact professionals.3. We were awarded a $145,000 general support grant from one of the largest charitable grant makers in the country. These funds will be used for marketing and engagement efforts, storytelling through impact measurement and collateral production, and building capacity for nonprofits in our community.4. Funded a grant pool and awarded four nonprofit partners with small general support grants, which were voted on by our partnership at our annual meeting.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 88% 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: 51
- Transparency & Controls: 72
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 49
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 51.5%; rating input score 51
- Program expense ratio: 59.2%; rating input score 59
- Fundraising efficiency: $5.47 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 32.4%; rating input score 32; 43rd 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; 64th 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: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 14.2%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.76; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 40.8%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 23.2% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 19.7% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 51.5% of revenue deployed · 59.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $147K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $101K · 9 people listed
- Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- 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 51/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 32/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 23/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.