Collaborative Law Institute
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 411703520
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- White Bear, MN, USA
- Phone
- 9524052010
- Rating confidence
- Limited
- Sector
- Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $94,188
- Expenses
- $94,383
- Assets
- $25,914
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Katrina Viegas (Co-President)
- Janna Hefty (Co-President)
People named in this filing
- Melissa Miroslavich (Director)
- Gregory Solum (Director)
- Brett Jenson (Director)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Collaborative Law Institute of Minnesota (CLI) is a nonprofit organization whose members include attorneys, mediators, mental health professionals, and financial neutrals. CLI uses a unique Collaborative process that allows families to move through divorce, separation, other family disputes, and some civil matters with dignity and respect. CLI members share the common goal of helping clients reach resolution of their conflicts outside of court. The mission of the Collaborative Law Institute is to build and support a community of multidisciplinary collaborative professionals dedicated to making Collaborative Practice known, valued, and practiced with excellence.
What it reported doing in 2025
The Collaborative Law Institute updated household income levels for the Sliding Scal Fee clients to allow greater access to more families. The Collaborative Law Institute continued upgrading its website for more efficient access to pertinent information for its consumers.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 41
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: Limited
- Program expense ratio: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -0.2%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.27; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 80.8% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 34th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
- Schedules: 1 filed schedules
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.