Community Action Partnership of Hennepin County
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 411524088
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Brooklyn Park, MN, USA
- Phone
- 9529339639
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community Service Clubs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $7,046,002
- Expenses
- $6,921,612
- Assets
- $2,110,603
- Liabilities
- $1,555,631
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
29 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- CLARENCE HIGHTOWER PHD (EXECUTVE DIRECTOR): $243,330 total reported compensation
- KENDRA KROLIK (CHIEF STRATEGY & ADVANCEMENT OFFICER): $162,910 total reported compensation
- TODD BLOOFLAT (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $162,607 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Partner with the community to provide effective and responsive services to reduce the impact of poverty in hennepin county.
What it reported doing in 2025
Energy assistance: energy assistance is a health and safety program funded by the federal low-income energy assistance program (liheap) to maintain affordable, continuous, and safe home energy for income eligible households in hennepin county. The program provides financial assistance to households to help with utility (gas, electric, oil) payments, crisis intervention when utility shut off or disruption is imminent, and referrals to other support programs. The program also provides financial assistance to eligible households to help with repair or replacement to homeowners' heating systems. The organization continued the solar program in 2025 whereas energy assistance clients who were willing to participate in a program to have solar energy panels installed on their homes at no cost to them.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 97% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 68% for direct work, and 32% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 82
- Transparency & Controls: 75
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 23
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 79.7%; rating input score 80
- Program expense ratio: 81.1%; rating input score 81
- Fundraising efficiency: $2,453.85 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th 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 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Limited
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 1.8%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.3; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.74; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 10.1%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 79.7% of revenue deployed · 81.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $5.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $243K · 29 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $301K reported
- Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
- 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 33/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.