Mn350 Action

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
823247267
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2019, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Minneapolis, MN, USA
Phone
6124405350
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,580
Expenses
$122,119
Assets
$187,558
Liabilities
$9,400

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHEILA LAMB (PRESIDENT)
  • TARA HOUSKA (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • THERESA MCCLENTY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • THERESA MCCLENTY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $119,382 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Mn350 action is organized to promote climate justice - an economically and racially just transition to a clean energy economy - through ongoing public education and community organizing throughout Minnesota and the midwest. By recruiting supporters, training leaders, and convening meetings and educational events at the neighborhood, city, and state level, mn350 action intends to build an organization of people who take actions to advance more sustainable, just communities.

What it reported doing in 2025

In 2025, mn350 action translated organizing efforts into concrete electoral and policy outcomes. The organization supported climate-focused candidates in special elections and helped protect Minnesota's clean energy progress.as new challenges emerged, including rapid data center expansion and renewed attacks on climate policy, mn350 action remained focused and strategic in building the climate majority Minnesota needs.key 2025 activities and outcomes included:1. Electing climate champions supported and helped elect pro-climate leaders in key special elections, winning 2 of 2 endorsed races in the 2025 special election cycle. Advanced geothermal heat pump and weatherization initiatives through advocacy with policymakers and partners.2. Defending clean energy progress successfully opposed proposed rollbacks to state-level clean energy policies. Helped protect previously enacted clean energy standards and programs. Promoted bipartisan support for electric school bus infrastructure.3. Preparing for emerging threats began organizing around large-scale data center expansion in Minnesota to address associated climate, energy, and utility impacts. Educated supporters, decision makers, and community partners about these emerging risks and potential policy responses.4. Policy action team mobilized supporters to participate in key public comment workshops on Minnesota's natural gas system. Endorsed climate-focused candidates in special elections and supported their campaigns through volunteer outreach. Led and participated in virtual and in-person trainings to build skills in advocacy and organizing. Turned out volunteers for events and hearings at the Minnesota capitol.5. Zero waste work supported state-level zero waste legislation and related policy improvements. Advocated for easier and safer battery recycling to reduce waste and environmental risk.6. Engagement with regulatory agencies mobilized public comments on natural gas infrastructure rulemakings, clean energy rulemakings, and utility rate cases. Submitted formal organizational comments in regulatory proceedings to advance clean energy and climate goals.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 16
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 71.8%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0.96 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Fail
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -870.7%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.54; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.3%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -16.8% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.8% per year; rating input score 0; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 71.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $88K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $119K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.