Urban Strategies Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431141027
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Saint Louis, MO, USA
Phone
3144214200
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Centers to Support the Independence of Specific Populations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$23,356,074
Expenses
$22,405,746
Assets
$9,281,655
Liabilities
$1,067,298

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ESTHER SHIN (PRESIDENT)
  • DONOVAN DUNCAN (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ALICIA WILLIAMS WALTER (REGIONAL VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KRISTIE GAIL STUTLER (REGIONAL VICE PRESIDENT)
  • EVA ELLIS MOSBY (REGIONAL VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ESTHER SHIN (PRESIDENT): $354,939 total reported compensation
  • DONOVAN DUNCAN (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT): $273,873 total reported compensation
  • ALICIA WILLIAMS WALTER (REGIONAL VICE PRESIDENT): $174,267 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 ensure that all children and families are stable and thriving.

What it reported doing in 2024

Planning: community planning and human capital development - the organization works with current and former residents, public housing authorities (pha), city government officials, community organizations, foundations and other stakeholders to facilitate community engagement processes around neighborhood conditions and human services needs. The process typically includes gathering data from existing sources, both formally and informally, surveying residents, assessing service and amenity needs, holding facility town hall meetings and facilitating focus groups with key stakeholders.(continued on schedule o...)through the community engagement process, stakeholders' priorities are identified, and the organization develops a human capital plan that is integrated with the planned physical revitalization based on the community's vision. Because the organization is mindful of the existing and authentic strengths of a community, its human capital plans focus on collaboration, building on community assets and strengthening capacity while avoiding duplication of services.early project development - the organization is sometimes engaged by one of the developers, municipalities and housing authorities to assist with early development of projects. This work includes traveling to potential project sites to assess the suitability of the community for a mixed-income redevelopment, assess the human capital needs that must be addressed as part of that redevelopment, meet with local officials to engage in preliminary discussion about the type of scope of the potential redevelopment project and project costs and conduct early investigation of potential funding sources.economic development - residents in revitalizing communities desire nearby neighborhood amenities such as commercial, green, and communal spaces for convenience. These amenities also attract new residents. Communities engage the organization to develop neighborhood-based economic development plans, including new commercial enterprises and enhancements to existing commercial and retail efforts. The organization has the expertise to design business and implementation plans, capacity studies and funding/capital access plans to help communities build vibrant commercial corridors. The organization also supports the design and implementation of social enterprises that empower residents economically by connecting them to business development opportunities.enhanced schools - the organization believes that improving schools is central to every re-emerging community. For more than 10 years, the organization has worked in neighborhood elementary schools to establish and maintain mixed-income communities and support social, economic and racial integration. The organization has worked in partnership with st. Louis, memphis, baltimore, san francisco, sacramento, san antonio, pittsburgh, columbus, miami, louisville, tulsa, and minneapolis to lead improvements in physical infrastructure, governance, curriculum, technology and community engagement in neighborhood schools and support academic achievement as a tool for ensuring positive economic mobility. The organization also recognizes that setting or changing school policy is beyond its control, which is why it is critical that it not only support schools by working within the system, but also supporting the development or implementation of ancillary programming outside of school hours to support high academic achievement.supportive housing - certain populations require additional services or physical accommodations due to physical disability, developmental limitations or homelessness, and the organization is committed to maximizing opportunities for all to live successfully and to achieve the greatest possible degree of self-sufficiency where they live.the organization works with organizations representing populations with special housing needs to design frameworks and financial structures that help residents to live independently with both pride a

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 63% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.9%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 83.3%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • 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: 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.1%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.41; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.1%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.9% of revenue deployed · 83.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $18.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $355K · 16 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $756K reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.