Bfw Institute for Education and Research

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
411887801
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019
Location
Minnetonka, MN, USA
Phone
9527463174
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Federated Giving Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$568,678
Expenses
$495,668
Assets
$67,946
Liabilities
$896,419

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DOUG HUSEBY (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DOUG HUSEBY (PRESIDENT)
  • PATRICK KEEFE (CFO)
  • CHRISTOPHER BARBER (BOARD MBR/ MARKETING COORD)

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 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Pain free patriots is a 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to assisting military veterans (see item 4a, below).

What it reported doing in 2019

Pain free patriots is a program that provides medical grants for the effective treatment to help relieve the pain of military veterans. Veterans apply to the program for a medical grant after they have exhausted more traditional medical care. The pain free patriots care team reviews each veteran's case to determine eligibility to receive a grant based on their medical condition, proof of their military service and a determination of their ability to complete the program and follow the pre-established protocols.once approved for treatment, the veteran can only use the grant at one of three clinics in the twin cities area. Each of these three clinics utilizes protocols, techniques, equipment and technology developed throughout the history of the program. The services and products used in the pain free patriots program are provided at cost plus an administrative charge (which approximates the cost of administering the pain free patriots program).during the last twelve to eighteen months, the care costs per veteran increased dramatically as the care team began to approve grants for veterans with issues related to opioid addiction. The increased costs per veteran meant that the medical grants did not cover the cost of services provided by the clinics and as such, the organization has incurred an operating deficit. Pain free patriots borrowed money from several short-term sources to fund this shortfall.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.1%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 86.8%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 74th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.8%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.14; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 13.19; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -62.1% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 44.3% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 47.7% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76.1% of revenue deployed · 86.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $430K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2018 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.