Minnesota Economic Development Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 020684826
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2017–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024
- Location
- Minneapolis, MN, USA
- Phone
- 9529284640
- Rating
- 79
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $73,468
- Expenses
- $59,950
- Assets
- $183,153
- Liabilities
- $7,621
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
People named in this filing
- REBECCA KURTZ (CHAIR)
- LESLIE DINGMANN (VICE CHAIR/TREASURER)
- TIM KORBY (SECRETARY)
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
Building a stronger Minnesota through education, scholarships/grants, research and outreach based incentives.
What it reported doing in 2024
Minnesota economic development foundation hosted aminnesota basic economic development course. The content included sessions on an economic developmentoverview, business retention and expansion, business attraction and marketing, entrepreneurial and small business development, research and economic analysis, workforce development and attraction, financial andincentives, business and industrial park development, real estate development, industrial redevelopment, transportation and utilities, strategic planning, managing development organizations, community andneighborhood development, and ethics.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 52% for direct work, and 48% for grants.
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 liabilities are high compared with assets.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 61
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 65
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 55.8%; rating input score 56
- Program expense ratio: 69.3%; rating input score 69
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 18.4%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.06; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 55.8% of revenue deployed · 69.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $42K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.