Minnesota Comeback

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474086472
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019
Location
Minneapolis, MN, USA
Phone
6124182935
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nonmonetary Support N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$551,113
Expenses
$597,781
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • AL FAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • AL FAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $105,838 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Driven by an unwavering moral imperative that every child, regardless of its race, income or zip code, deserves the same high-quality education, mn comeback has become a growing movement of philanthropists, community leaders and education leaders implementing a plan to coordinate system level investments that improve k-12 education.

What it reported doing in 2019

Minnesota comeback is a coalition of education and philanthropic leaders committed to transforming k-12 education in Minnesota by improving education outcomes and supporting the growth of high-performing schools accessible to all children. It was initially funded as an internal project of the minneapolis foundation, and has now gained enough of a groundswell of support among Minnesota education leadership to operate as a separate legal organization. The guiding vision of Minnesota comeback is that by 2025, all minneapolis children will be enrolled in rigorous and relevant schools that prepare them to thrive in college, their career, and the community.Minnesota comeback advances its mission primarily through research and coalition building around high-impact education grant investments and through assisting in a program of grantmaking. We conduct research and publish reports to educate other education leaders and general public on issues of education transformation in Minnesota. We use data system mapping to identify the specific factors that drive success in education systems. Other organizations use the corporation's research and advice as a platform to inform their decisions regarding placement of resources in their own education systems to achieve the most high-impact investments in education. Minnesota comeback's coalition of education and philanthropic organizations comes together to analyze and implement initiatives based on this research to improve education systems in Minnesota. Another way we advance our mission is by focusing resources on attracting and growing proven school models and by building capacity in the Minnesota education ecosystem primarily around talent, facilities, and community engagement needed to sustain a system of high-performing schools. We use critical data to identify policy change and other community-wide improvements that will strengthen the education ecosystem in Minnesota.Minnesota comeback also supports grantmaking aimed at strategic investments in Minnesota education. It does this by performing the "legwork" of the grantmaking process for a fund held by the minneapolis foundation. Specifically, we review grant applications and make recommendations to the minneapolis foundation as to distributions from the fund that will be used to make grants to public schools, public charter schools, and independent schools, and any other supporting grants aimed at improving the Minnesota education system.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 82% 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 most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 96
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 10
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.7%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 56.9%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.42 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 74th 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -8.5%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.7%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -18.4% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -13.4% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -73.4% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61.7% of revenue deployed · 56.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $340K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $106K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2015 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.