Spark Community Cafe Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
821517160
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Versailles, KY, USA
Phone
8592137593
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Food, Agriculture, and Nutrition N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$257,260
Expenses
$258,064
Assets
$16,227
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

People named in this filing

  • JACKIE ANTHONY (BOARD MEMBER)
  • LORRAINE GARKOVICH (BOARD MEMBER)
  • DINA JOHNSON (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

College students along with a long list of local supporters were looking to make a difference in their hometown. The idea began in a high school class led by now retired teacher, kyle fannin. After some of the students attended a national conference which focused on food insecurity issues, teacher andy smith suggested visiting an existing facility in danville, ky known as grace cafe, which would serve as a model. From there the spark community cafe was born. In 2020, board chair whitney stepp-gay joined the board of directors for spark community cafe, inc. She, like the other board members, understood the problem of food insecurity and wanted to expand the mission of spark community cafe, inc. After a lot of discussion, the cafe made the move to close its doors in june, but continue moving forward providing meals and advocating for vulnerable members of the community. With new grants and support from local and state partners, spark community cafe inc, plans on maintaining a storage spa

What it reported doing in 2024

The spark community cafe, inc was a "pay-what-you-can" type of restaurant similar to other cafes located across the country known as the "one world-everybody eats initiative. Community leaders, teachers and students discovered that issues such as hunger can be combated with the younger generation. The cafe invited those who could, to pay a meal forward for those who could not. Unfortunately, the doors to spark community cafe's closed at the end of june. However, after a year of discussion, the board members decided to focus on advocating for vulnerable members of the community by preparing and delivering meals from a local church. Per whitney stepp-gay, the chair of spark community cafe, while the cafe crew and community share a love for the gathering space, they are looking ahead. Spark community cafe, inc. Plans on maintaining a storage space, food pantry and freezer for its work. While open, spark community cafe served more than 80,000 meals to people living in woodford county, sometimes for free

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 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.3%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 95%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.3%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.06; rating input score 5; 5th 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: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -14.8% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.3% of revenue deployed · 95% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $245K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.