Leaderspark Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311649949
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Columbus, OH, USA
Phone
6144427899
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$129,825
Expenses
$133,727
Assets
$79,107
Liabilities
$7,485

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MJ CLARK (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • KAY WILSON (EXECUTIVE DI): $60,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission is to ignite the power of youth leadership by providing practical leadership skills through a proven curriculum, training, and coaching support.

What it reported doing in 2017

Working with united way of central Ohio, asian american community services, franklin county juvenile detention center, franklinton preparatory academy, community refugee immigration services, helping africans in new directions, starbucks stores, whitehall yearling school district. Worked with 440 youth, 112 adults, and 36 adult menotors. Provided leadership training (30 hours) in the following topics: "self efficacy", "qualities and styles of leadership", "working with groups", "planning projects", "dealing with conflict", "presenting myself & my brand": interviewing and employability skills. (over 95% of the participants are more confident about their leadership skills as a result of going through leaderspark.)

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 74% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. The required major-donor schedule is missing or incomplete and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.5%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 77.1%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $61.19 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.59; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 44.9%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -10.9% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.5% of revenue deployed · 77.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $103K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $60K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2011 to 2017
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.