Stellar Living Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
923897877
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Midvale, UT, USA
Phone
8014957000
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$412,148
Expenses
$435,023
Assets
$162,726
Liabilities
$24,372

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

People named in this filing

  • EVRETT BENTON (CHAIR)
  • ADAM BENTON (1ST VICE-CHAIR)
  • RAY HENDERSON (2ND VICE-CHAIR)

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

Stellar living foundation exists to champion the power of the individual. By removing barriers and creating opportunities, we lift lives that go on to lift many more.

What it reported doing in 2025

Milo's project provides paid employment for individuals with special needs within stellar senior living communities. In 2025, the foundation supported 10 employees in roles across activities, dining, and community engagement, working with individuals and their families in Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Arizona, Washington, and New Mexico.the foundation also awarded $19,700 in partner grants to organizations supporting individuals with disabilities, including: crossroads of the west council $6,000 rods heroes $5,000 national ability center $2,200 wasatch peaks foundation $2,000 USA deaf baseball $2,500 friendship adventures, relentless iq, vfh post 1841, budah's brightside $500 eachthese partnerships helped expand adaptive recreation, veteran support, and inclusive employment opportunities across our nine-state footprint.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 65% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 51% for direct work, and 49% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.7%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 70.4%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.5 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 80.6%; rating input score 81; 51st 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5.6%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.37; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 83.5% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 22.2% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -36% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.7% of revenue deployed · 70.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $306K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $167K reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 19/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.