Minds Matter of Nyc Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
320191502
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2126266534
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,599,086
Expenses
$2,682,852
Assets
$2,963,571
Liabilities
$153,965

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

Leadership & pay

27 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • COSETTE GUTIERREZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • COSETTE GUTIERREZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $227,424 total reported compensation
  • RACHEL GELLER (DIRECTOR OF VOLUNTEERS): $147,606 total reported compensation
  • L'TOYA JONES (DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS): $129,621 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Minds matter nyc connects driven and determined students from low-income families with the people, preparation, and possibilities to succeed in college, create their future, and change the world.

What it reported doing in 2024

High school program: includes all high school program expenses incurred during sophomore, junior, and senior year. This includes programming from september to may (18 to 22 sessions), sat and writing contractors, and related costs such as metrocards, food, and supplies. This category also includes minds matter's summer programming in july (academic leadership development academy), a three week intensive for rising high school juniors focused on academics and community. Costs include space rental, transportation, school trips, sat prep, and skills workshops. Junior summer programs for rising high school seniors, including tuition, travel, and application fees, are included. Associated staff salaries and related expenses are also included.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 79% for direct work, and 21% for 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.1%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 75.5%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.81 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: -3.2%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.1; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.8%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.2% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.1% of revenue deployed · 75.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $227K · 27 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.