Community Emergency Service Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
411728341
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2011
Location
Minneapolis, MN, USA
Phone
6128701125
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Personal Social Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,162,377
Expenses
$2,675,828
Assets
$2,394,724
Liabilities
$145,754

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMES DOLYNCHUK (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JAMES DOLYNCHUK (PRESIDENT): $119,881 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Community emergency service (ces) is one of the largest food distribution nonprofits serving one of the poorest communities in the twin cities. Our mission is to turn hunger into hope through three principal programs: (i) food market, (ii) meals on wheels, and (iii) ani-meals, which supports pet food access and veterinary health for companion animals. Together, these programs serve thousands of neighbors each week. During the year, ces distributed 250,000 pounds of food through our food shelf, provided 82,000 meals through meals on wheels, and supported 900 neighbors through the ani-meals program.

What it reported doing in 2024

Our food market serves thousands of individuals and families each year through a supershelf-style grocery store that allows neighbors to choose foods that meet their cultural and dietary needs. In addition, refrigerated food lockers located outside our facility provide 24/7 access to fresh food. Supported by nearly 2,000 dedicated volunteers, this program distributes more than 250,000 pounds of food annually to the surrounding community.the ces food market assisted over 144,000 individuals during the year by providing safe, healthy food. The program relies heavily on rescued food from grocery stores and partner organizations, allowing ces to meet demand without turning away any neighbor seeking assistance. Ces implemented an online appointment system and expanded its refrigerated food locker program, providing 24/7 access to food. Over 90% of food shelf visitors utilize these online tools, saving hours of wait time per visit. Over 90% of clients self-identified as black, indigenous, or people of color (bipoc). Ces also hosts visiting medical practitioners who provide services such as blood pressure checks, diabetic screenings, and opioid dependency support.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 61% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 63.4%; rating input score 63
  • Program expense ratio: 74.4%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.56 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 84.3%; rating input score 84; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 15.4%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.89; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.5%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 63.4% of revenue deployed · 74.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $120K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 34 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.