Community Action Partnership of North Dakota Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203916967
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Fargo, ND, USA
Phone
7012322452
Rating
88
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Support N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,722,151
Expenses
$6,395,686
Assets
$6,281,497
Liabilities
$1,179,663

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANDREA OLSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANDREA OLSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $99,707 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Serve as a catalyst for training, technical assistance, program development, evaluation, research, fundraising, and public education for community action agencies in North Dakota.

What it reported doing in 2025

Since launching in 2025, ndhg has become a critical component of North Dakota's homelessness response system. To date, the program has served approximately 652 individuals in 291 households statewide, including 573 individuals through homeless prevention and 79 individuals through rapid rehousing. The majority of households served have received assistance before becoming homeless, helping families remain safely housed while reducing demand on emergency shelters and other crisis services. Through a coordinated statewide approach, ndhg is helping stabilize vulnerable households, reduce homelessness, and strengthen local communities while leveraging the expertise and community partnerships of North Dakota's community action agencies.the region 8 rpic strengthens community action agencies across North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming by providing shared training, technical assistance, and leadership development opportunities. Over the past year, the consortium delivered regional trainings on fiscal oversight, governance, roma, data literacy, workforce development, and program effectiveness, helping agencies build capacity and improve outcomes.through initiatives such as the region 8 moodle academy, young professionals program, regional conferences, and data-focused trainings, rpic has expanded access to high-quality professional development while reducing barriers faced by small and rural states. These collaborative efforts have strengthened agency performance, improved data-informed decision-making, and enhanced the ability of community action agencies to effectively serve their communities.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.9%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 98.6%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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; 50th 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 4.9%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.98; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.6%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 20.8% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 21.8% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 34% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 93.9% of revenue deployed · 98.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $6.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $100K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 7 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.