Centering Space
Legal name: Centering Space Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 920776625
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2022–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Lakewood, OH, United States
- Phone
- (216) 228-7451
- Rating
- 55
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Interfaith Coalitions
- Affiliation
- Interfaith
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $153,470
- Expenses
- $150,820
- Assets
- $1,467,402
- Liabilities
- $2,003
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Angela O'Donnell (Vice President)
- Jim Duffy (President)
People named in this filing
- Betsy Nero (Director)
- Carol Kandiko (Director)
- Joann Piotrkowski (Director)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Centering Space provides a place where people can come and listen to their heart and hear the voice of God. Our Vision. Consider joining us as we step into the next 20 years. Your support is essential to the great ministry that takes place here. Your contribution — no matter the size — affects our growth and sustainability. Image Image. Annie Brennan has been with Centering Space since September 2024. A John Carroll University graduate with a degree in Integrated Marketing Communications and a minor in Theology and Religious Studies, Annie brings a background in creating meaningful content, graphic design and social media management to help share the organization's mission and programming. Image Program Coordinator - Mary Kate Strimpfel.
What it reported doing in 2025
Programming: Weekly prayer circles and a variety of programming including book discussions, poetry readings, and contemplative practices are offered focused on contemporary issues from a spiritual perspective.
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 99% 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
MIXED - 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: 23
- Transparency & Controls: 85
- Accountability: 70
- Sustainability: 59
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 23.5%; rating input score 23
- Program expense ratio: 27.7%; rating input score 28
- Fundraising efficiency: $2.21 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 10; 10th 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: Limited
- 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- 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: 1.7%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.73; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 31.4% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -5.4% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 42.8% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 8 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 23.5% of revenue deployed · 27.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $42K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
- Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 23/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 28/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 10/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.