Spring Road Kyiv Missions Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
843389473
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Baltic, OH, USA
Phone
3304655311
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$517,973
Expenses
$388,079
Assets
$373,967
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KYLE SCHLEGEL (PRESIDENT)
  • JON LOTUT (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • KYLE SCHLEGEL (PRESIDENT)
  • JON LOTUT (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • RENAE BEEGLE (TREASURER)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to support on the ground humanitarian relief initiatives in ukraine.

What it reported doing in 2025

Rebuilding Homes: As the war continues, the frontlines are now on the South & East of Ukraine. The frontline was moved and more Ukranian territory was liberated. The destruction from being occupied is devastating, leasving many houses, infrastructure, schools & factories completely destroyed. Thousands of people lost their homes. The sout part of Ukraine, Mykolaiv region, is the bread basket of Ukraine, with many agricultural businesses, farming lands, & food factories still able to function. The administration of those regions have contacted YWAM Kyiv asking to come help build temporary homes for the people in those villages in order to keep people living & working in the needed jobs. We were able to support the build of homes for 37 families. We were also able to support the build of two community centers, both of them in communities where schools supporting youth programs were destroyed. This project included many volunteers coming in from the US, Canada, and other European countries to help with the building process.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as 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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 69
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.8%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 98.5%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 70%; rating input score 70; 0th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • 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: 25.1%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.96; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -43.4% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.1% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.8% of revenue deployed · 98.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $382K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 18 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grants require schedule f did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 42/100.