Common Table Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
020538138
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2018–2020
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Santa Barbara, CA, USA
Phone
8054486483
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Student Services, Organizations of Students

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$67,742
Expenses
$91,375
Assets
$6,455
Liabilities
$15,000

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TODD CAPPS (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • TODD CAPPS (PRESIDENT)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To educate and inform members of the community through essential and authentic dialogue and engagement

What it reported doing in 2020

Common table: divisiveness and conflict are fueled by the inability to see each other as people, with much more in common than we are often led to believe. Walter capps stated that "we are strongest as people when we are directed by that which unites us, rather than giving into the fears, suspicions, innuendos and paranoias that divide." sitting down for a meal together is one of the most fundamental ways to bridge divisions and build community. It is a basic starting point toward deeper understanding and relationship-building. Common table represents a growing number of rather uncommon events around the community for doing just that. No speeches, no politics, no awards just food and conversation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. 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: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.8%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 39.9%; rating input score 40

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -34.9%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.07; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.32; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 27.4%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.5% per year; rating input score 0; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 24.7% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.8% of revenue deployed · 39.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 4 filed program accomplishments · $36K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2018 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 40/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.