The Frank Lloyd Wright House in Ebsworth Park

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431727003
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
St Louis, MO, USA
Phone
3149915646
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$793,606
Expenses
$326,120
Assets
$3,225,904
Liabilities
$15,802

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kathryn T Feldt (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kathryn T Feldt (Executive Director): $110,390 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 The Frank Lloyd Wright House in Ebsworth Park is to preserve and promote the Frank Lloyd Wright House and its surrounding property as an architectural and design museum, educational center, and public park. The vision of The Frank Lloyd Wright House in Ebsworth Park is to serve as a focal point for educational activities relating to the work of Frank Lloyd Wright and to architecture and design in general.

What it reported doing in 2024

Preservation Programs: The Frank Lloyd Wright House in Ebsworth Park (FLWHEP) completed the analysis of critical preservation needs through the development of a Conservation Management Plan which provides a values-based methodology for future preservation and maintenance of the house. As a result of the CMP analysis, the Board approved a major roof restoration and site development work to address accessibility issues. Harboe Architects was selected to oversee the roof restoration which returns the roof to the original cedar shingles as built in 1951. Arbolope Landscape Architects will design the site development project. These projects will take place fall 2025 and into 2026.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 70% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 42.6%; rating input score 43
  • Program expense ratio: 72%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $23.82 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 58.9%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.89; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 33.8%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.5% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -22.6% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 42.6% of revenue deployed · 72% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $235K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $110K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 42 of 43 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 43/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.