Ppl Properties

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
274235225
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Minneapolis, MN, USA
Phone
6124555100
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Low-Income & Subsidized Rental Housing

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,324,127
Expenses
$16,355,528
Assets
$117,420,890
Liabilities
$122,419,823

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KARLA HENDERSON (PRESIDENT)
  • PAUL WILLIAMS (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • PAUL WILLIAMS (VICE PRESIDENT): $419,489 total reported compensation
  • SCOTT CORDES (TREASURER): $257,905 total reported compensation
  • KARLA HENDERSON (PRESIDENT): $188,267 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 corporation shall be operated exclusively for the benefit of, to perform the functions of, or to carry out the purposes of project for pride in living, a Minnesota nonprofit organization.

What it reported doing in 2024

Ppl properties owns membership interests in over 30 single-member limited liability companies that hold and manage real estate devoted to use as affordable housing for lower-income individuals and families. See schedule r for a full list.ppl properties also participates as a partner in general and/or limited partnerships that own and manage real property, all for the benefit of ppl, in future years.ppl properties is the sole owner of other wholly owned llcs which consists of: a community center that houses a ppl program, the service center which is the headquarters of ppl's administrative offices and onsite training center (franklin theater), and an entity which acquires, rehabilitates, and sells single family homes to low income buyers in north minneapolis.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 98% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, and 23% for affiliated organizations.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 32
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -58.4%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.18; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.04; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.5%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 4 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $16.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $419K · 4 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.2M reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 53 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.