Big Brothers Big Sisters of the Greater Twin Cities
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 320017737
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Minneapolis, MN, USA
- Phone
- 6517892400
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Human Services
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $6,213,152
- Expenses
- $6,542,369
- Assets
- $23,435,247
- Liabilities
- $545,854
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
25 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- PATRICK SUKHUM (PRESIDENT AND CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- PATRICK SUKHUM (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $232,416 total reported compensation
- REBECCA MACHAMER (VP OF ADVANCEMENT): $127,834 total reported compensation
- SEAN O'CONNOR (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE): $123,361 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Our mission is to create and support mentoring relationships that ignite the power and promise of youth.
What it reported doing in 2024
Big brothers big sisters twin cities partners with 2,400 youth and their families each year through mentorship programs, including community-based mentoring, school-based mentoring, our big futures program which offers career and future readiness for teens, and free arts. Programming is supported by professional staff and more than 1,400 volunteers.our latest data show that youth report strong results in key developmental areas that lead to long-term success including educational persistence, making healthy choices, and developing social emotional skills necessary for personal success. For surveyed youth in 2025 mentored at least one year: 85% reported maintaining and strengthening educational expectations including high school completion and going to college; 80% reported maintaining and strengthening academic performance and grades; 91% reported maintaining and strengthening emotional regulation skills; and 90% reported maintaining and strengthening social competence with their peers.big brothers big sisters twin cities stakeholders also report a high level of satisfaction. Young people value the program, with 98% affirming that the relationship with their big is very important to them. Parenting adults are also pleased with the mentoring programs 92% report that their child has had a positive and fun experience. Volunteers are positively impacted by mentorship 96% of bigs report that they would recommend the program to their friends.a recent harvard study reports that youth enrolled in big brothers big sisters mentoring programs across the nation have better high school graduation rates, higher college enrollment rates, and lower dropout rates. This leads to increases in life-time earnings of 15-20% compared to non-mentored youth. That's more than just money in their pockets it's a fundamental shift in their life-long path and community impact! Big brothers big sisters mentorship closes two-thirds of the socio-economic gap, demonstrating the power of mentorship to build social capital and foster upward mobility
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 79% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 64
- Transparency & Controls: 87
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 45
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 72.8%; rating input score 73
- Program expense ratio: 65.8%; rating input score 66
- Fundraising efficiency: $3.73 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 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: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -5.3%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.58; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 10.9%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 15.6% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 72.8% of revenue deployed · 65.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $232K · 25 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 40 of 40 current checks pass
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 5 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 11/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.