Minnesota Black Collective Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 883613546
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2023–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2022
- Location
- Minneapolis, MN, USA
- Phone
- 6122937787
- Rating
- 79
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community Foundations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,317,894
- Expenses
- $2,377,746
- Assets
- $4,997,135
- Liabilities
- $48,273
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Lulete Mola (President & Co-Founder)
Highest reported compensation
- Lulete Mola (President & Co-Founder): $205,115 total reported compensation
- Stacy Papier-Meister (Sr Director of Ops & Admin Lead): $144,667 total reported compensation
- CeMar Peterson (Sr Director of Impact): $120,581 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Our mission is to build Black philanthropic power to strengthen the ecosystem of Black-led social, political, and economic change in Minnesota and beyond.
What it reported doing in 2025
Events & Convenings: We continue to strengthen the ecosystem of those that serve the Black community through community convenings, retreats, and more. For example, in 2025 we hosted The Collective Sum, a three-day immersive summit that blends deep learning, community building, and collective strategizing. Together, we explored bold ideas at the intersection of culture, economic power, and civic engagement. Attendees engaged in conversations and strategies that respond to today's challenges while staying true to our values. Another example is our Rooting engagement. For 4 years, Rooting has been a premier social gathering series curated for people working, leading, and serving the Black community in the social sector. At Rooting, we network, strengthen relationships, break bread, and reflect with one another on what it takes to be well and work for a more just MN.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 61% for direct work, and 39% 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 77
- Transparency & Controls: 72
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 38
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 82.4%; rating input score 82
- Program expense ratio: 79.5%; rating input score 80
- Fundraising efficiency: $13.03 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 96.9%; rating input score 97; 38th 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: -2.6%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.1; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 19.8%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 13.7% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 14.3% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 41.5% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 82.4% of revenue deployed · 79.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.9M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $205K · 7 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $284K reported
- Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 23 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 20 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 45/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.