Urban League of Metropolitan St. Louis

Legal name: Urban League of Metropolitan St Louis

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
430653605
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Jul 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
St. Louis, MO, USA
Phone
(314) 615-3600
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$56,384,000
Expenses
$47,914,152
Assets
$81,180,557
Liabilities
$29,261,663

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

Leadership & pay

93 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL MCMILLAN (CEO/PRESIDENT)
  • BARBARA BOWMAN (VICE PRESIDENT - CONTROLLER)
  • GWENDOLYN DIGGS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MICHAEL HOLMES (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • BETH ANNE MASON YAKUBU (VICE-PRESIDENT)
  • KEESHA STRONG (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHAEL MCMILLAN (CEO/PRESIDENT): $506,550 total reported compensation
  • AUNDREA YOUNG (SR. VP - CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $175,509 total reported compensation
  • BARBARA BOWMAN (VICE PRESIDENT - CONTROLLER): $161,448 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 enable African Americans and other marginalized communities to secure economic self-reliance, parity, power, and civil rights.

What it reported doing in 2024

Education excellence the urban league will advocate for educational equality for african americans and others while providing programs that ensure early skills achievement, equal access to secondary educational opportunities and parental involvement.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 60% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 78% for direct work, and 22% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some related-organization disclosures are missing.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 64
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.9%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 83.2%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $26.9 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 95%; rating input score 95; 34th 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th 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: 15%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.69; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.36; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.1%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.3% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 70.9% of revenue deployed · 83.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 82 of 82 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $39.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $507K · 93 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.8M reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 33 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 12 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.