Minnesota Private College Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510166951
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
St Paul, MN, USA
Phone
6512289061
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,771,507
Expenses
$2,087,961
Assets
$2,083,910
Liabilities
$163,977

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

Leadership & pay

38 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
  • ERIN OMBERG (CFO): $86,893 total reported compensation
  • STACEY HOLLAND (CFO): $44,620 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 fund serves the shared needs of its members by seeking philanthropic support from corporations, foundations, and others for the benefit of its member colleges and universities and the students they educate.

What it reported doing in 2024

Distribution of financial support for the 17 member private colleges, their students, and fund-operated scholarship programs that support students at member private colleges. Every dollar contributed to the fund is distributed as financial support for the 17 member private colleges, need-based scholarships at member colleges, and financial support for fund-operated special scholarship programs that support students at member colleges. Each member institution pays annual dues to mpcf, which cover all the fund's general overhead, fundraising, and administrative expenses.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 81% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 43% for direct work, and 57% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.5%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 76.8%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.35 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 97%; rating input score 97; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -17.9%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.6%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 90.5% of revenue deployed · 76.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 32 of 33 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $501K · 38 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $113K reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 17 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 20 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 51/100.