Sparc Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
991609526
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Bethlehem, PA, USA
Phone
4842412645
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$300,000
Expenses
$229,517
Assets
$70,483
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STEVE CARNEVALE (CHAIR/ PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • STEVE CARNEVALE (CHAIR/ PRESIDENT)
  • SALLY DANCER (BOARD MEMBER)
  • MEG SMALL (BOARD MEMBER)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organization's purposes include: developing 21st-century stills for individual and team flourishing, for increased performance and well-being amoung students, professionals, and the broader community; enhancing individual and team performance by leveraging research, practical principles, and strategies for the benefit of students, professionals, and the broader community to empower personal and professional development.

What it reported doing in 2024

Sparc foundation supports collaborative research and early-stage applications that simultaneously promote the wellbeing and performance of the next generation of dreamers and doers. Sparc's signature 4-step process was originally developed and has a history of success helping companies build strong brands to engage and retain their customers. Sparc foundation is now using the same structured process and principles to help intentionally unlock the full potential of teams, researchers, and practitioners.our uniquely human-centered and data-driven process focuses on optimizing performance and wellbeing through: values and practice alignmentimplementation of research-informed practices in teams' existing workflowsstrengthening supportive relationships across the teams' lifecycles.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 51% for direct work, and 49% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.9%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 97.9%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 23.5%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.31; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.9% of revenue deployed · 97.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $225K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.