Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
410909036
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
St Paul, MN, USA
Phone
6516411011
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,103,410
Expenses
$5,605,956
Assets
$5,764,487
Liabilities
$494,817

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARIELOS CABRERA (BOARD PRESIDENT)
  • CHANG LAU (BOARD VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JENNIFER STOHL POWELL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JENNIFER STOHL POWELL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $170,868 total reported compensation
  • DIEGO RIVERA (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION): $136,059 total reported compensation
  • KATHLEEN KNIGHT (NEW BEGINNINGS SUPERVISING ATTORNEY): $127,135 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the immigrant law center of Minnesota (ilcm) is to enhance opportunities for immigrants and refugees through legal representation for low-income individuals, and through education and advocacy with diverse communities.

What it reported doing in 2025

Advocacy project: ilcm works at a systems-level to promote fair and just public policies that support immigrant and refugee communities. Ilcm works directly with the immigrant community, immigrant advocates, nonprofits, business and civic leaders, law enforcement, and policymakers to increase awareness of the contributions and needs of immigrants and refugees and to advocate for welcoming policies at the local, state, and federal levels. During the 2025 legislative session, ilcm built and co-led a coalition on affordable auto insurance that secured a hearing in the Minnesota house. Lack of affordable auto insurance particularly affects the low-income immigrant and refugee communities that we serve, creating transportation and work barriers, along with higher likelihoods of interaction with the criminal legal system. We also sent a letter to the governor of Minnesota and the Minnesota legislature opposing the stripping of mncare state health insurance for undocumented minnesotans.as ice activity ramped up in Minnesota throughout 2025, ilcm took a variety of approaches. We testified against two Minnesota house bills that attempted to increase local cooperation with ice. We also drafted a sign-on letter against an anti-sanctuary bill, securing support from 20+ local allies. At the local level, ilcm advocated for a stronger separation ordinance in minneapolis. We went before the data practices commission to express support for stringent guardrails around surveillance technologies such as automatic license plate readers, reverse location warrants, and facial recognition technology, all of which have the potential for sharing information with ice and other federal agencies. Finally, during operation metro surge, ilcm worked with local partners to gather information and prepare background and context for advocacy heading into 2026 legislative session.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 66% for direct work, and 34% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.7%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 82.9%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $26.35 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.5%; rating input score 100; 45th 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 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: 30.8%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.03; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.1%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.7% of revenue deployed · 82.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 13 filed program accomplishments · $4.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $171K · 23 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $108K reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 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: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.