NAMI St Louis

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431143899
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
St Louis, MO, USA
Phone
3149624670
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,331,631
Expenses
$1,091,253
Assets
$3,940,814
Liabilities
$239,355

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Rebecca Rutherford (Vice President)
  • Christina Gesmundo-Simon (Vice President)
  • Scott Bayliff (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Christine Patterson (Executive Dir.): $127,233 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

NAMI St. Louis provides education, advocacy, and support essential to the recovery, resilience, and well-being of all who have mental health needs and for their families, caregivers, and the community.

What it reported doing in 2025

Information and resources were provided to 20,320 professional providers, law enforcement and general community members in the form of health fairs and social media. We also reached 7,274 individuals in the form of the newsletter. The NAMI St. Louis HelpLine served 1,393 individuals providing resources. Additionally, there were educational activities supporting legislation to improve treatments and support for people with mental health conditions through our advocacy committee. The committee learns how to advocate for individuals living with mental health conditions and to join voices to help create an improved public mental health system in our communities.

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

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.5%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 82.9%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.34 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 64th 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 18.1%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.61; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.7%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.3% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71.5% of revenue deployed · 82.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 25 of 25 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $904K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $127K · 25 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 36/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.