Minnesota Council on Crime and Justice

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
410798280
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Minneapolis, MN, USA
Phone
6123533000
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Support N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,308,247
Expenses
$1,110,211
Assets
$585,855
Liabilities
$158,367

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JENIFER LABOVITZ (PRESIDENT INTERIM)
  • ANDY SAGVOLD (PRESIDENT INTERIM)
  • GARY SCHIFF (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANDY SAGVOLD (PRESIDENT INTERIM): $49,750 total reported compensation
  • GARY SCHIFF (PRESIDENT): $43,602 total reported compensation
  • JENIFER LABOVITZ (PRESIDENT INTERIM): $23,680 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Improve community capacity to address the causes and consequences of crime and violence through research, demonstration and advocacy. The council works on behalf of both victims of crime and indiviudals who have been accused or convicted of crime.

What it reported doing in 2014

Advocacy and research program: our efforts to identify, address and reduce the collateral consequences of criminal records included the following accomplishments in 2014: 1) trained over 571 workforce providers on how to help people with criminal records obtain employment, education and professional licensing; 2) advised 738 community members at free legal clinics designed to help them better understand their criminal records, improve their ability to discuss their record with employers and landlords, and access legal remedies such as record expungement and licensing appeals; 3) counseled over 452 attorneys, judges, police officers, probation officers and professionals so they may better represent, understand and serve the one in four minnesotans with criminal records; 4) successfully advocated for legislation to ban-the-box, allowing job applicants criminal records a better opportunity to receive interviews.

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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.3%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 66.3%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.11 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 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: 15.1%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.53; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.5%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -16.3% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -18.9% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.3% of revenue deployed · 66.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $736K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $50K · 18 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2010 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 34/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.