Minnesota Association of Healthcare Volunteers
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 411695948
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2014–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024
- Location
- Appleton, MN, USA
- Phone
- 3202952462
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Arts, Cultural Organizations - Multipurpose
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,736
- Expenses
- $3,555
- Assets
- $118,013
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
People named in this filing
- THEORA GODDRICH (BOARD MEMBER/DISTRICT)
- LINDA TEZAK (MEMBERSHIP DIRECTOR)
- JANENE RIEDEMAN (BOARD MEMBER/IN HOUSE CONSULTANT)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Our mission is to provide members with opportunities to share ideas, develop leadership skills, and promote volunteer services that support Minnesota's healthcare facilities. Our vision is to be the premier leader, partner and resource for healthcare volunteers and auxilians.
What it reported doing in 2024
We hired a consultant to upgrade our bylaws etc to more align with the organizations needs. Our consultant has been contacting members who most closely fit a leadership role in the various areas of the Minnesota association of healthcare volunteers organization
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 80
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 52
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 90.3%; rating input score 90
- Program expense ratio: 62.7%; rating input score 63
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -29.9%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 33.2; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -28.3% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -27.4% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 90.3% of revenue deployed · 62.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.