Spark Ministry

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
208958283
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2012
Location
Carrollton, TX, USA
Phone
2146365528
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Interfaith Coalitions
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$720,562
Expenses
$435,784
Assets
$875,330
Liabilities
$14,378

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jan Jones (President)

People named in this filing

  • Kristen McCaslin (Executive Dir.)
  • Molly Breitenfeld (Executive Dir.)
  • Patricia Wyman (Executive Dir.)

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 purpose of SPARK Ministry is to Serve People And Reflect Kindness by ministering to the physical, emotional and spiritual needs of women in difficult life situations. We empower Christian women to serve others by putting their faith into action through short-term mission trips. Non-profit, non-denominational ministry Partnering with faith-based shelters across the U.S. This is a full Spark Ministry Weekend. All volunteers are asked to serve and participate for the entire weekend. If you’ve heard there is a waitlist, **don’t let that stop you from registering** —we encourage everyone who feels called to go to sign up. **If God is prompting you to be part of this trip, we want you there! Registration is Now Closed.

What it reported doing in 2024

Spark Ministry took volunteers to minister to the women living in the shelter in Jacksonville, FL. We gave them a 3 day retreat which included a speaker, a worship leader, small group times, team building activities, home cooked meals and fun activities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 72% 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 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: 44
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 34.6%; rating input score 35
  • Program expense ratio: 55.1%; rating input score 55
  • Fundraising efficiency: $19.4 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd 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; 63rd 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: 39.5%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.01; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.2% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 34.6% of revenue deployed · 55.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $240K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 35/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 58/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule G fundraiser detail did not reconcile in the filed values.