Northern Bedrock Conservation Corps

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
272993111
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Duluth, MN, USA
Phone
2183024774
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Job Training

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$576,218
Expenses
$725,309
Assets
$624,132
Liabilities
$400,976

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • CHARLEY LANGOWSKI (EXECUTIVE DI): $93,043 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To develop enduring workforce and life skills through service learning in historic preservation and community stewardship.

What it reported doing in 2024

Our program selected 15 corpsmembers from all backgrounds and walks of life for their enthusiasm, desire to learn, and commitment to serve a 3 or 5 month (450 or 900 hours) term. In 2024 they served on historic preservation projects throughout our field season from june 1st to october 27th, 2024. Crews restored historically significant log buildings, windows and cemeteries, completed carpentry and painting/staining service projects, and helped lead a historic masonry workshop. Service projects are planned and funded through partnerships with a variety of groups, including non-profit organizations and government entities at all levels (federal, state, county, and local). This program has been financed in part with funds provided by the state of Minnesota from the arts and cultural heritage fund through the Minnesota historical society.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 19
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99%; rating input score 99
  • Program expense ratio: 80.3%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $16.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 53; 53rd 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: 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -25.9%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.86; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.64; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.8%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.9% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.8% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 99% of revenue deployed · 80.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $582K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $93K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 53/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.