St Louis Public Development Corporation I

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431561434
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Saint Louis, MO, USA
Phone
3142319400
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$633,936
Expenses
$2,719,974
Assets
$5,632,491
Liabilities
$2,027,763

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • COLLEEN HAFNER (PRESIDENT)
  • MARK STROKER (VICE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY)

Highest reported compensation

  • COLLEEN HAFNER (PRESIDENT): $161,959 total reported compensation
  • MARK STROKER (VICE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY): $144,404 total reported compensation
  • BRIAN HURD (TREASURER): $115,607 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. Louis public development corporation (pdc i) works to redevelop and strengthen communities by providing housing development services, capacity-building and financing for the successful revitalization of neighborhoods in the st. Louis metropolitan area in cooperation with rise community development, a 501(c)(3) organization.

What it reported doing in 2024

Owner of affordable, mixed-income and mixed-use developments/guarantor for all rise-affiliated real estate development projects. St. Louis public development corporation ("pdc i") owns or participates in the ownership of a wide range of affordable and mixed-income housing and mixed-use real estate developments with over 300 residential units in underinvested communities in the st. Louis area. Pdc i also maintains a risk reserve to leverage the financial guarantees it makes on behalf of all rise-affiliate real estate development activity. It currently guarantees over $47 million in real estate investment-related contingent liabilities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 84% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 52
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 80.1%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 33.3%; rating input score 33; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -329.1%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.07; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.36; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.3%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 25.8% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 80.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $162K · 4 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 39 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 33/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.