Minnesota Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
411344162
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2012
Forms available
Form 990 2012
Location
Saint Paul, MN, USA
Phone
6516456159
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Agricultural Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$395,760
Expenses
$481,351
Assets
$45,076
Liabilities
$14,290

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Minnesota Project champions the sustainable production and equitable distribution of energy and food in communities across Minnesota. Currently, The Minnesota Project is the only environmental non-profit in Minnesota that advances community based solutions at the intersection of energy, agriculture and food sustainability.

What it reported doing in 2012

Energy - The Minnesota Project works in partnership with numerous state, nonprofit and private organizations to educate and influence policy for efficient and sustainable energy. Our work includes farm energy efficiency, rural solar energy, and exploration of additional sustainable energy technologies. We developed energy efficiency and solar energy education materials, workshops and online resources for farms to explore energy efficiency tactics and renewable energy options they can employ to conserve and more effectively use energy in their farming operations. Through statewide leadership and regional partnerships, we developed a Farm Energy Auditor Training program to build energy auditor capacity on energy matters specific to agriculture and encourage farmer application to USDA-NRCS energy management cost-share programs. Through research and development funding from the Minnesota Department of Commerce - Division of Energy Resources, we implemented an LED Lighting for Poultry pilot project to reduce on-farm electrical consumption for poultry producers. This project has drawn the attention of Minnesota utility companies as a way to help them satisfy their 1.5% energy conservation mandate under state law. Additionally, we conducted a dairy farm energy efficiency project through an Otto Bremer Foundation grant to help dairy farmers conserve energy, reduce production costs, and maintain profitability. In conjunction with the Clean Energy Resource Teams (CERTs), a University of Minnesota Extension program, we provided technical assistance through funding from USDA-Rural Development on rural solar energy projects in Minnesota. We developed solar energy education materials, provided outreach to interested farmers and rural residents, and guidance on solar energy assessment and project implementation. Additionally, we conducted educational conferences for the public and professionals to exchange ideas around energy. We continue our leadership in the development of sustainable energy practices and technologies including distributed electrical generation, as well as the promotion of anaerobic digestion and combined heat and power technologies.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 64% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 11th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -21.6%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.09; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.32; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.6%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -24.9% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $408K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $80K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 38 of 39 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2010 to 2012
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.