Black Visions

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
882846006
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Minneapolis, MN, USA
Phone
6123986930
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Civil Rights, Social Action, Advocacy N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$38,635
Expenses
$2,597,317
Assets
$12,069,117
Liabilities
$678,292

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

People named in this filing

  • JULIA JOHNSON (CHAIR/DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS)
  • VALENTINA MCKENZIE (CHAIR THROUGH JANUARY)
  • HAILU YILMA (VICE CHAIR)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to organize powerful, connected Black communities and dismantle systems of violence

What it reported doing in 2025

Program name: community partnershipsprogram accomplishments: * supported tc pride to table and educate community on the work of black visions.* supported the "west broadway mpls juneteenth" to educate the community about environmental safety issues in the community.* supported the "endslaverymn day on the hill" to educate and support the community efforts of the endslavery campaign.program name: herc (hennepin energy recovery center) initiativeprogram description: to bring awareness to the trash incinerator in the community that is polluting the air. Program accomplishments: * continued work engaging community members on the hennepin energy recovery center to discuss the impact of the local air-polluting incinerator. Hosting meetings at our office and continued coalition support in moving towards closure.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 47% for direct work, and 53% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 53
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 80.7%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0.26 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 30%; rating input score 30; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -6,622.7%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.65; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 71.6% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 88.8% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 80.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 30/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.