A Seat at the Table

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
821149122
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2019, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Saint Louis, MO, USA
Phone
6367955192
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Group Homes
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$367,679
Expenses
$373,408
Assets
$725,651
Liabilities
$335

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BOB STERGOS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/BOARD DIRECTOR)
  • KEVIN TOKEN (PRESIDENT/BOARD DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • BOB STERGOS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/BOARD DIRECTOR): $45,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of a seat at the table is to help at risk youth ages 18 to 25 years old better transition into adulthood by providing mentoring and community resources in a christian environment.

What it reported doing in 2025

Provided Trauma-Informed Counseling for our 8 Residents with licensed, professional counselors to help Residents heal from past issues of abandonment, family dysfunction, abuse and trauma. HE NOW KNOWS HOW TO GROCERY SHOP AND COOK SUFFICIENTLY TO PROVIDE FOR HIMSELF. OUR PROGAM HAS ALSO ASSISTED HIM TO DEVELOP AND MANAGE A MONTHLY BUDGET. ALL OF THIS HAS ENABLED HIM TO QUALFIY FOR HIS OWN APARTMENT ONE BLOCK FROM A SEAT AT THE TABLE SHAW NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE. THIS GRADUATE THEN COMES BACK TO JOIN US AT AOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED SUNDAY AND WENDESDAY EVENING FAMILY MEALS WHICH HE NOW MENTORS OUR CURRENT RESIDENTS WHO ARE FOLLOWING IN HIS FOOTSTEPS.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.5%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 52.5%; rating input score 53
  • Fundraising efficiency: $23.07 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

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: 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -1.6%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.94; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.1%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 20.7% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.1% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.5% of revenue deployed · 52.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $196K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $45K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.