Alberici Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203676488
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
St Louis, MO, USA
Phone
3145888200
Rating
48
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,422,362
Expenses
$80,296
Assets
$6,908,401
Liabilities
$200,000

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • DWIGHT CANNING (SECRETARY): $245,923 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

This organization operates exclusively for the benefit, to perform the functions, and to carry out the purposes of the st. Louis community foundation, inc. Through grant making, disseminating information/public education, convening members of the community and other activities typical of a community foundation.

What it reported doing in 2024

This organization operates exclusively for the benefit, to perform the functions, and to carry out the purposes of the st. Louis community foundation, inc. Through grant making, conducting research, disseminating information/public education, convening members of the community and other activities typical of a community foundation. These activities shall exclusively advance the charitable purposes of the st. Louis community foundation, inc. That are: the promotion of the care of the sick, aged, infirm and handicapped, the care of children, the improvement of living, working and environmental conditions or facilities and such other charitable, educational and scientific purposes that will assist in the betterment of mental, social and physical conditions, of the human race and primarily, but not limited to, the inhabitants of the city of st. Louis and the adjacent areas, as now or hereafter constituted, regardless of race, religion, sex, place of national origin, or political persuasion.in the 12 months ended 12/31/24, we issued 9 grants to various not-for-profit organizations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 85% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 56% for direct work, and 44% for grants.

The verdict

MIXED - 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 27
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 85
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 8.4%; rating input score 8
  • Program expense ratio: 68.3%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 94.4%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 86.04; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.6%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.5% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.8% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 8.4% of revenue deployed · 68.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $55K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $246K · 3 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 8/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.