Conflict Resolution Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
363421329
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Minneapolis, MN, USA
Phone
6128229883
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Dispute Resolution, Mediation Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$780,787
Expenses
$906,061
Assets
$109,050
Liabilities
$226,020

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Nikki Beasley (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Nikki Beasley (Executive Director): $110,852 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

CRC seeks to help individuals and organizations resolve conflicts earlier in the dispute process to prevent the need for more costly interventions on the part of the police, courts, and counties. CRC is dedicated to providing dispute resolution services for individuals for whom traditional legal services are too costly, too complex, or not culturally appropriate.

What it reported doing in 2025

In calendar year 2025, the Conflict Resolution Center (CRC) continued to provide accessible mediation and alternative dispute resolution services across Minnesota. The organization engaged 164 active volunteers and operated with 8 full-time equivalent staff. CRC handled 485 mediation cases, with 479 conducted remotely and 6 in person. Of these, 101 cases proceeded to mediation sessions, including harassment, housing, family, and community matters. Mediation outcomes were nearly evenly split, with 48 agreements and 53 no-agreement results. Another 375 cases closed prior to mediation, including 27 resolved through conciliation. Additional ADR offerings---including conferences, coaching, and facilitation---served 146 people across 50 sessions. Prevention and training services reached 75 individuals. In total, county-level data shows 344 people served through ADR processes, with the highest concentration in Hennepin County.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 95% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 10
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.7%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 55.8%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -16%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.12; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.07; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.2%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.4% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 64.7% of revenue deployed · 55.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $506K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $111K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2011 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.