Minnesota Student Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
410711599
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Minneapolis, MN, USA
Phone
7636914310
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Student Services, Organizations of Students

Reported finances

Revenue
$223,555
Expenses
$155,320
Assets
$120,313
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Rahma Ali (President)
  • Clara Junemann (Vice President)
  • Mariam Hassan (Chief of Staff to the President)
  • Niel Drabek (Executive Director of Affairs)
  • Ashlee X Ramirez (Executive Director of Communication)
  • Joslyn Blass (Executive Director of GLA)

Highest reported compensation

  • Joslyn Blass (Executive Director of GLA): $5,575 total reported compensation
  • Rahma Ali (President): $5,500 total reported compensation
  • Clara Junemann (Vice President): $5,500 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 Student Association doing business as Undergraduate Student Government USG works as the voice of the undergraduate student body by shaping University policy working with university administrators and the Board of Regents and engaging with legislators at every level of government. We advocate for undergraduate students at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities by listening to students needs and concerns and committing to advocacy works that addresses these needs.

What it reported doing in 2024

Initiatives from this past year include the Row the Vote campaign. For the most recent 2024 election the Row the Vote campaign visited over 1,000 classrooms helped 2,000 students register to vote and supported 12,000 students in making a plan to vote. The University of Minnesota was also ranked #1 out of 307 universities nationwide for the ALL IN To Vote Top Pledging Campus rankings for the 2024 election.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 94% 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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 95
  • Accountability: 68
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.6%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 94.4%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 30.5%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.77; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.1%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 13.5% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.5% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.6% of revenue deployed · 94.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 40 of 40 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $147K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $6K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 18 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.