Saint Therese

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
411704381
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
St Louis Park, MN, USA
Phone
9522832206
Rating
54
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Philanthropy, Voluntarism, and Grantmaking Foundations N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$15,163,842
Expenses
$9,523,417
Assets
$40,626,329
Liabilities
$8,461,862

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CRAIG ABBOTT (PRESIDENT AND CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • CRAIG ABBOTT (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $708,358 total reported compensation
  • CALVIN SHELANGOSKI (CFO): $402,268 total reported compensation
  • LISA KALLA (COO): $390,080 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Providing fundraising, planning, and other support to affiliated organizations.

What it reported doing in 2024

Saint therese is a nonprofit faith-based organization that has focused on the well-being of individuals since it opened in 1968. We provide secure, stress-free living and the very best in senior care and housing with a commitment to each individual. Saint therese offers a true continuum of programs and services that are available in your own home or in one of our community settings.the operations of saint therese foundation, llc involve planning and hosting fundraising activities to help support the functions of saint therese and its related organizations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 79% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 46% for direct work, and 54% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 1
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 1.4%; rating input score 1
  • Program expense ratio: 1.1%; rating input score 1
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.17 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • 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: 78.6%; rating input score 79; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 37.2%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.27; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 25.4%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.8% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 1.4% of revenue deployed · 1.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $109K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $708K · 15 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1M reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 8 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 1/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.