Minnesota Freedom Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
821214607
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2018, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Minneapolis, MN, USA
Phone
9523812644
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Administration of Justice, Courts

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,158,080
Expenses
$4,033,318
Assets
$15,613,130
Liabilities
$615,103

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JANA KOOREN (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JANA KOOREN (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $131,793 total reported compensation
  • CHANDA SMITH BAKER (INTERIM EXEC. DIR. (THRU 12/2024)): $125,708 total reported compensation
  • SARAH NOBLE FRANK (DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS): $104,636 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Minnesota freedom fund pays criminal bail and immigration bonds for those who cannot otherwise afford to as we seek to end discriminatory, coercive, and oppressive jailing.

What it reported doing in 2024

In 2024, Minnesota freedom fund was active in supporting individuals with immigration bonds and pretrial bonds. Mff posted immigration bonds for 91 individuals. In addition, we provided paralegal support on numerous immigration cases, assisted in interpretation at ice offices and supported our clients after they were bonded out. Mff posted 495 pretrail bails (for 409 people), many of whom chose to receive additional post release support services from our organization. Supportive services include arranging rides to court, connecting clients with supportive services, and more. Mff spent time in the community presenting and educating people on the harms of pretrial bail and immigration detention, including by launching a court watch program in hennepin and ramsey counties.

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 96% 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

STRONG - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 67.3%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.31 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.6%; rating input score 99; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -248.3%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.87; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.6% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.4% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 67.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $132K · 9 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $304K reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 10/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 55/100.