Minnesota Private College Council Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
455394262
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
St Paul, MN, USA
Phone
6512289061
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,164,623
Expenses
$3,279,189
Assets
$4,050,117
Liabilities
$763,190

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

Leadership & pay

43 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PAUL D CERKVENIK (PRESIDENT AND CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • PAUL D CERKVENIK (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $500,717 total reported compensation
  • JOHN STEINER-MANNING (DIRECTOR OF MARKETING): $166,633 total reported compensation
  • MEGAN ROZOWSKI (DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH): $142,986 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 private college council serves the shared needs of its member colleges and advocates for public policy that meets the educational needs of students, enhances private higher education, and strengthens Minnesota's economic and civic fabric.

What it reported doing in 2024

Minnesota private college council, inc. (the corporation) is a Minnesota nonprofit corporation incorporated on may 22, 2012. It is organized and operated exclusively for social welfare, charitable, and educational purposes; and to (i) foster and implement co-operation among its members for the improvement of higher education; (ii) provide a unified voice for effective communication regarding independent higher education in the state of Minnesota; (iii) co-operate with institutions of higher education, government agencies and other interested groups in developing policies and planning programs for the advancement of higher education. The corporation conducts public relations and advocacy work, legislative lobbying, cooperative marketing of our member institutions to students and families, and research. The corporation also serves as a vehicle for collaboration of its member institutions.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 96% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.5%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 83.7%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 97.2%; rating input score 97; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3.6%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.24; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 36.6%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.5% of revenue deployed · 83.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 35 of 36 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $501K · 43 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.