St John Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
611135907
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Louisville, KY, USA
Phone
5025686758
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,093,951
Expenses
$3,664,450
Assets
$13,945,832
Liabilities
$179,136

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RA'SHANN MARTIN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • RA'SHANN MARTIN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $112,246 total reported compensation
  • RICARDO GOODIN (BOARD MEMBER): $38 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

St john center (sjc) was founded in 1986 in response to the rise of homelessness in the louisville metro area. Sjc remains committed to providing refuge, resources, and services to those experiencing homelessness. Over the past 39 years, sjc has grown to offer three core programs: day shelter and social services center, permanent supportive housing, and street outreach.

What it reported doing in 2024

St john center's day shelter and social services center provides a safe, welcoming place for individuals experiencing homelessness to access shelter, resources, and services. Many clients face significant barriers to housing, including health disparities, lack of documentation, and limited support systems. Staff and volunteers work side by side with clients to remove these barriers, one step at a time, so that individuals can move into permanent housing. During the fiscal year 2025, 3,163 clients visited the day shelter and social services center 52,776 times to access these services: 1) referrals, documentation, and safety: staff ensured consistent service provision, a safe environment, and assistance with ids and community resource referrals. 2) housing support services. Two housing specialists guided clients through the housing process. 3) service partners. Community partners such as the veterans administration, legal aid, ky harm reduction coalition, louisville recovery community center, phoenix health care, and wellspring's assertive community treatment team regularly provided on-site services. 4) staff connected clients with mental health, substance use, and recovery services. 5) basic services. Guests received mail, made phone calls, and accessed showers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 82% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 82% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 87
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 29.9%; rating input score 30
  • Program expense ratio: 77.3%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $26.2 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 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: 63.7%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.81; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.1%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.2% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 32% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 27% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 29.9% of revenue deployed · 77.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 23 of 23 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $112K · 24 people listed
  • Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 30/100.