Leonard & Beryl Buck Foundation C/o Wells Fargo Bank

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
946485668
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Saint Louis, MO, USA
Phone
7045902828
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Named Trusts N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$62,821,444
Expenses
$42,648,171
Assets
$1,133,444,734
Liabilities
$27,726,801

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

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

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

Overview

Mission

The leonard and beryl buck foundation is a charitable trust that was established in 1979 to distribute funds for non-profit charitable, religious or educational activities in marin county, California.

What it reported doing in 2024

Wells fargo bank ("wfb"), as investment trustee, administers the trust and manages the trust's investments. As required by the court orders, the investment trustee made direct distributions to the buck institute for research on aging, alcohol justice, and the buck institute for education (dba pbl works), which totaled in the amount of $10,233,343 for the 2025 fiscal year. Marin community foundation ("mcf"), as distribution trustee, distributed trust funds to charitable recipients, which totaled in the amount of $17,477,270 for the 2025 fiscal year. Grants by the distribution trustee were made throughout marin county to support mcf's four strategic initatives, as well as the nine community grant areas.(continued on schedule o)the strategic initiatives are: closing the educational achievement gap, developing affordable housing, increasing the economic security and upward mobility of poor and low-income individuals and families, and acting as a catalyst for change in efforts to reduce the environmental impacts of climate change. Issue areas being supported under the community grants areas are immigrant integration, services for older adults, community health, legal services, arts education and community arts, social justice, and access to parks and open space.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 68% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 36
  • Sustainability: 95
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 60.1%; rating input score 60
  • Program expense ratio: 95.4%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 97.9%; rating input score 98; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 32.1%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 26.58; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 60.1% of revenue deployed · 95.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 2 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $40.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $788K reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes foreign activity and grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 57 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 58 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Whistleblower policy not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.