Delmar Divine Charitable Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 825255262
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2019
- Location
- St Louis, MO, USA
- Phone
- 3143912444
- Rating
- 79
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Urban, Community Economic Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,992,203
- Expenses
- $4,772,436
- Assets
- $20,183,029
- Liabilities
- $17,262,355
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
16 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MAXINE CLARK (PRESIDENT)
- YUSEF SCOGGIN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- YUSEF SCOGGIN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $221,832 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Through a combination of shared space, capacity-building programs, and support services, delmar divine strives to maximize the efficiency, effectiveness, and impact of the nonprofit sector in the st. Louis region while simultaneously being a catalyst for... See schedule o.the transformation of neighborhoods in north st. Louis city.
What it reported doing in 2025
Tenant services: delmar divine is modeled after the shared space paradigm and will provide shared office space for 33 nonprofits that encourages collaboration and overhead reductions, bolstered by capacity building training from Washington university, and concierge services to extend the bandwidth of agency staffs. All of the agencies have free access to over 18,000 square feet of shared space, including conference rooms, meeting spaces, and an auditorium. This allows the agencies to forego renting or acquiring extra space for board meetings, community gatherings, or events. All of these services are provided on an ongoing basis.a three-person "concierge" team helps...see schedule o. (tenant services continued) create a vibrant community culture and deliver services that extend the bandwidth of the agencies housed at delmar divine. The team does research and gets answers to day-to-day problems, makes referrals and introductions, and creates programming relevant to individual tenants and sectors (healthcare, education, etc.) represented in the building.in partnership with Washington university, delmar divine's "center for human services leadership organizes a variety of educational programs, social and on-boarding activities to connect tenants, facilitates relationships, stimulates collaboration, enhances employee morale and builds a distinctive delmar divine community culture that emphasizes diversity, equity and inclusion.further, delmar divine makes available seminars and programs from Washington university's brown school that emphasize extended, active-learning, cohort-based executive education and intensive certificate programs. There will be a gradual expansion of offerings to encompass topics such as financial management, organizational re-alignment, talent development, and performance management. Intensive programs are supplemented by half or full day workshops. Education programs are complemented and supported by applied research programs, large-scale convenings, speakers, and publications to study and motivate action on critical issues facing the st. Louis human service ecosystem, such as critical pipeline shortages, weak fundraising capacity, financial vulnerability and organizational realignment.working with a variety of partners, the foundation also provides capacity-building trainings to nonprofits that do not reside at delmar divine. These trainings are held at regular intervals and are subsidized to increase access for the agencies.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 90
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 33
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 89.6%; rating input score 90
- Fundraising efficiency: $12.29 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -19.5%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.23; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.86; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.6%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -15.5% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -20.9% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 14% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 89.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $4.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $222K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $825K reported
- Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 43/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 59/100.