Saint Louis University
Legal name: St Louis University
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 430654872
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024, Form 990-N 2022
- Location
- St Louis, MO, USA
- Phone
- 3149772401
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- University or Technological Institute
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,195,599,660
- Expenses
- $967,639,853
- Assets
- $3,052,408,787
- Liabilities
- $631,642,378
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
62 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- FRED P PESTELLO (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- TRAVIS S FORD (HEAD COACH-BASKETBALL): $2,834,120 total reported compensation
- FRED P PESTELLO (PRESIDENT): $1,841,355 total reported compensation
- JOSH SCHERTZ (HEAD COACH-BASKETBALL): $1,309,639 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Mission of Saint Louis University is the pursuit of truth for the greater glory of God and for the service of humanity. The University seeks excellence in the fulfillment of its corporate purposes of teaching, research, health care and service to the community. It is dedicated to leadership in the continuing quest for understanding of God's creation and for the discovery, dissemination and integration of the values, knowledge and skills required to transform society in the spirit of the Gospels. As a Catholic, Jesuit university, this pursuit is motivated by the inspiration and values of the Judeo-Christian tradition and is guided by the spiritual and intellectual ideals of the Society of Jesus. In support of its mission, the University:.
What it reported doing in 2024
Instruction and academic support - credit and non-credit courses for academic, vocational, and technical instruction, for remedial and tutorial instruction, and for regular, special and extension sessions. Activities in this category include support services such as libraries, educational media services, academic computing support, academic administration, etc. 15,334 students enrolled for 6/30/2025 fiscal year.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 70% 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 58% for direct work, and 42% for 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. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 82
- Transparency & Controls: 69
- Accountability: 94
- Sustainability: 79
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 89.5%; rating input score 89
- Program expense ratio: 83.6%; rating input score 84
- Fundraising efficiency: $9.65 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 90%; rating input score 90; 38th 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: 19.1%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.15; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.5%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 0% per year; rating input score 100; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site
- Where the money goes: 89.5% of revenue deployed · 83.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 27 of 30 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $809M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $2.8M · 62 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $43.8M reported
- Consistency: 45 of 45 current checks pass
- Schedules: 14 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 26 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 5 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 41/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.