Roman Catholic Foundation of Eastern Missouri

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
463309222
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
St. Louis, MO, United States
Phone
314.918.2890
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Foundations
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,821,241
Expenses
$9,040,525
Assets
$89,673,115
Liabilities
$14,088,482

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

Leadership & pay

34 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JIM SHAUGHNESSY (TRUSTEE/VICE-PRESIDENT/TREASURER)
  • JOSEPH BESTGEN (PRESIDENT/CEO/SECRETARY)
  • JOHN MODDER (VICE PRESIDENT/CFO)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOSEPH BESTGEN (PRESIDENT/CEO/SECRETARY): $209,113 total reported compensation
  • JOHN MODDER (VICE PRESIDENT/CFO): $157,392 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL WEISBROD (SENIOR GIFT PLANNING OFFICER): $123,032 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Inspiring giving and connecting donors to Catholic ministries, sustaining the local Church for future generations. The Roman Catholic Foundation is a 501(c)3 public charity, independent from the Archdiocese of St. Louis. The Foundation was established in 2013 with the goal of building endowed funds that will support Catholic parishes, schools and ministries throughout the Archdiocese of St. Louis for generations to come. Through the Foundation, you have a partner that will help you meet your charitable goals and sustain the Catholic organizations you love. Our Mission.

What it reported doing in 2025

Connecting donors and their philanthropic goals with parishes, schools, agencies and charities to help build a stewardship way of life and support existing efforts of the catholic church in the archdiocese of st. Louis.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 79% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 92% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 98
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 90.5%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $21.99 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 93.9%; rating input score 94; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 96%; rating input score 96; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 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: 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: 23.5%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.92; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.4%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.4% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 90% of revenue deployed · 90.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 24 of 25 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $8.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $209K · 34 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 131 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 127 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 57/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.