Professional Student Government

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
411677359
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2010
Location
Minneapolis, MN, USA
Phone
2085771812
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Centers to Support the Independence of Specific Populations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$208,175
Expenses
$214,375
Assets
$107,197
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Flora Yang (President, Vice President)
  • Peter Smith (Vice President, Secretary of Senate)

Highest reported compensation

  • Flora Yang (President, Vice President): $4,550 total reported compensation
  • Peter Smith (Vice President, Secretary of Senate): $2,790 total reported compensation
  • Grace Tamms (Secretary of Grants and Funds): $2,467 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 advocate for, represent and inform professional students at the university of Minnesota.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Professional Student Government (PSG) is a multilateral organization that acts as a resource for its member councils, a central contact for university administrators, and a crucial nexus of interdisciplinary communication among students. The goals of PSG are to support academic excellence, advocate on behalf of professional students, create an interdisciplinary community, and provide grants to students. Policy items were pursued at various administrative levels. PSG distributes a large portion of its funds as grants, including academic initiative grants, social events grants, professional development grants, and inter-council event grants. Hundreds of grants are distributed to students and organizations annually.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 99% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 94% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 23
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.1%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 76.7%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.9%; rating input score 99; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: Limited
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.5; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.4%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.6% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.5% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.9% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.1% of revenue deployed · 76.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $164K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $5K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 25 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 7 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 33/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.