Cortex

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
300082817
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
St Louis, MO, USA
Phone
3145314500
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,285,939
Expenses
$12,849,540
Assets
$81,766,615
Liabilities
$16,370,738

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

Leadership & pay

33 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SAM FIORELLO (PRESIDENT & CEO)
  • NATALIE SELF (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MARGARET CRANE (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT)
  • BRIAN RUSSELL (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • GABRIELA RAMIREZ-ARELLANO (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • LESLIE HEUSTED (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • SAM FIORELLO (PRESIDENT & CEO): $559,646 total reported compensation
  • MIKE BOZOVICH (ASSISTANT TREASURER): $358,772 total reported compensation
  • NATALIE SELF (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT): $265,236 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Founded in 2002, cortex mission is the creation of the midwest's premier innovation hub of bioscience and technology research, development and commercialization, serving as the anchor of st. Louis' growing ecosystem for innovative startup programs and established companies through urban revitalization.

What it reported doing in 2024

In addition to cortex's acquisition/development of real estate and the promotion of development activities of the cortex innovation district, cortex serves as the manager of st. Louis land company, l.l.c. (sllc) a Missouri limited liability company, that serves as a land holding entity in the revitalization of an approximate 200 acre tract of land in midtown st. Louis that will serve as a center of research, technology and entrepreneurial exchange. Cortex is the manager of sllc and incurred expenses in developing and maintaining the properties.

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 64% for direct work, and 36% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some related-organization disclosures are missing.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.3%; rating input score 92
  • Program expense ratio: 88%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $33.12 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.4%; rating input score 98; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.6%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.36; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.2%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 92.3% of revenue deployed · 88% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 26 of 26 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $11.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $560K · 33 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.9M reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 21 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 16 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 17/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.