St Louis Confluence

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
611716231
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2017, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Florissant, MO, USA
Phone
3147494005
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Adult, Continuing Education

Reported finances

Revenue
$55,932
Expenses
$43,274
Assets
$21,324
Liabilities
$8,666

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SARA VAUGHAN (PRESIDENT)
  • STEVE SOMMERS (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • SARA VAUGHAN (PRESIDENT)
  • BOB SOMMERS (SECRETARY)
  • STEVE SOMMERS (PRESIDENT)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

St. Louis confluence is the 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization behind tedxstlouis and tedxstlouis women. Founded in 2013, it is committed to elevating ideas that strengthen civic pride, spark meaningful engagement, and showcase the regions impact locally and globally. Alignment with community needs and updated board of directors structure to meet changing needs of the organization and provide for consistent oversight adds to our primary goal.

What it reported doing in 2025

St. Louis confluence is the 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization behind tedxstlouis and tedxstlouis women. Founded in 2013, it is committed to elevating ideas that strengthen civic pride, spark meaningful engagement, and showcase the regions impact locally and globally.

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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.4%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 22.6%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.49; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.41; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -6.5% per year; rating input score 0; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.4% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $43K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.