Staenberg Family Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
202055339
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Saint Louis, MO, USA
Phone
3144423857
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support
Affiliation
Judaism

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,018,651
Expenses
$1,671,349
Assets
$10,597,973
Liabilities
$1,001,259

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL STAENBERG (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRIAN HERSTIG (DIRECTOR): $195,707 total reported compensation
  • MELINDA SHARP (FORMER OFFICER): $186,350 total reported compensation
  • KAREN SHER (FORMER OFFICER): $185,475 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To be organized, and at all times hereafter, to be operated exclusively for the benefit of and to be operated, supervised and controlled by the jewish federation of st. Louis, a Missouri nonprofit corporation. To provide, establish and maintain an efficient and practical mode of soliciting, collecting and receiving contributions and to hold and devote the sums and property so collected, received and held to the support, maintenance and management of the general and jewish charitable, social welfare, cultural, educational and philanthropic organizations in the metropolitan area of the city of st. Louis, Missouri, or from this corporation may more effectively carry on its functions and activities and be relieved of the necessity of making separate appeals and collections.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 89% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 95.6%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th 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: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Limited
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -64.1%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.34; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.9%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7.2% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.4% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 95.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $196K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 26 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 32 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.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.