Commercial Real Estate Women of St Louis

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431585106
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
St Louis, MO, USA
Phone
3144926374
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Real Estate Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$368,553
Expenses
$350,739
Assets
$415,173
Liabilities
$31,880

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SARAH LUEM (PRESIDENT)
  • JEN NEVIL (PRESIDENT- E)

People named in this filing

  • SARAH LUEM (PRESIDENT)
  • JEN NEVIL (PRESIDENT- E)
  • ERIN VALENTINE (PAST PRESIDE)

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

Crew st. Louis' mission is to advance, educate, and support women to influence the commercial real estate industry.

What it reported doing in 2025

Provides opportunity for growth and sharing of information through monthly programs and events that promote business and professional opportunities, provide organizational and developmental support, and acknowledge and publicize the accomplishments of women in the field of commercial real estate. Chapter president and delegates are sent to national meetings and conventions to develop leaders that promote the highest professional standards. Scholarships are also provided to members to attend national convention. The chapter also supports a national scholarship for women interested in the field of commercial real estate through donations to crew. Crew-st. Louis reaches out to college and high school students interested in the field of commercial real estate and has a mentorship program for members.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 72% for direct work, 8% for grants, and 21% for affiliated organizations.

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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.3%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 74.2%; rating input score 74; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 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: 4.8%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.18; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.4% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.3% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $351K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.