League of Women Voters of Metro St Louis

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431094055
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2019, Form 990-N 2014
Location
St Louis, MO, USA
Phone
3149616869
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Government and Public Administration

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$197,311
Expenses
$161,223
Assets
$604,585
Liabilities
$19,780

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOAN HUBBARD (CO-PRESIDENT)
  • MARY TOY (2ND VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JENNIFER SHYLANSKI (1ST VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JEAN DUGAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JEAN DUGAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $44,831 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

League of women voters of metro st louis (lwvmstl) is a non-partisan, non-profit political organization that has been educating and empowering voters. Significant activities include registering voters and educating the public.

What it reported doing in 2024

Meetings - lwvmstl has local membership meetings to educate its members on current issues and to set program goals for the coming year. Annually, we have a membership business meeting, a fall kick-off member meeting and a holiday brunch. In addition, lwvmstl members are invited to attend a state fall and spring meetings with training and updates on current state-wide initiatives and issues. Every year, lwvmstl members are invited to attend a national meeting to consider positions and priorities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 69% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.7%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 66.6%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.95 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 26; 26th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 18.3%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.75; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 27.8%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 21.4% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61.7% of revenue deployed · 66.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $107K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $45K · 20 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 26/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.