Minnesota Academy of Science

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
410789356
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Saint Paul, MN, USA
Phone
6519173994
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$591,333
Expenses
$389,644
Assets
$205,598
Liabilities
$8,801

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Cynthia Ward-Thompson (President)
  • Kailey Soller (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kevin Sands (Executive Dir.): $51,851 total reported compensation
  • Kris Barry - former (Executive Dir.): $40,958 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 Minnesota Academy of Science MAS is a statewide 501c3 organization committed to advancing science, technology, engineering , and math STEM in Minnesota by connecting Minnesotans of all backgrounds with resources and opportunities to engage in STEM Learning, research, and communication, and to recognize excellence in these areas.

What it reported doing in 2025

The MN State Science & Engineering Fair was held in-person on Fri., March 27, 2026 in St. Paul. The event included student networking, STEM professionals judging, & public viewing of projects. Students visited 8 exhibitor booths and had free Science Museum admission. The event ended with a student social, a keynote address (by Dr. Clay Carter from the U of MN), and an award ceremony. We also had an online awards ceremony on Sun., March 29, to announce final awards. In total, 429 students particpated, representing 346 projects and 80 schools. Also, about 175 STEM professionals volunteered to judge projects and provide feedback to students, and about 30 more volunteered as special awards judges. We also had 25 general event volunteers to support staff in key roles. Efforts to increase student access to this activity included the one-day event structure, low registration costs, and fee waivers for those with financial need. We also started using a simpler Middle School project registration form to minimize the paperwork needed at that level.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 76% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 91% 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 a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 52.3%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 79.3%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $40.64 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 34.1%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.53; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.8%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.3% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 52.3% of revenue deployed · 79.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $309K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $52K · 18 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 52/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.