Hospitality Mn Education Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
710971013
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Minneapolis, MN, USA
Phone
6517782400
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$460,805
Expenses
$387,267
Assets
$503,909
Liabilities
$30,043

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

Leadership & pay

30 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANGELA WHITCOMB (PRESIDENT/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANGELA WHITCOMB (PRESIDENT/CEO): $171,595 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We are investing in our industry's future by training the workforce of today and inspiring the leaders of tomorrow.

What it reported doing in 2024

Prostart program: prostart is a two-year curriculum for culinary arts and foodservice management that includes classroom study, mentored work experiences and an optional prostart invitational competition. Prostart, affiliated with the national restaurant association educational foundation, is offered in over 100 Minnesota schools engaging more than 5,500 students with over 750 already working in the industry. The hmef connects mentors to each school, provides program teachers with training and industry resources, and sponsors the statewide prostart competition each spring. The competition features two categories: culinary arts and foodservice management. Annually , up to twenty teams of high school students compete for awards, scholarships, and the top team in each category advanced to the national prostart invitational held in may. Hmef provides a travel allowance to each team. The talents of prostart students are featured at several industry events throughout the year connecting them with future employers and reinforcing their career choices.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 65% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 69% for direct work, and 31% for grants.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64%; rating input score 64
  • Program expense ratio: 76.2%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.08 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 51.7%; rating input score 52; 43rd 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.3; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.8%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 64% of revenue deployed · 76.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 30 of 30 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $295K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $172K · 30 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 26/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.