PMI Minnesota
Legal name: Project Management Institute - Minnesota Chapter
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 411990654
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2023
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2023
- Location
- Saint Paul, MN, United States
- Phone
- 651.917.6246
- Rating
- 37
- Verdict
- REVIEW
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $302,663
- Expenses
- $266,805
- Assets
- $983,261
- Liabilities
- $65,029
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- GERALDINE MARKS (President CEO)
- ISIUWA TANIMOJO (President Elect COO)
People named in this filing
- GERALDINE MARKS (President CEO)
- ISIUWA TANIMOJO (President Elect COO)
- GIRIMA ANDERSON (Director of Finance)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
As part of PMI International’s core processes, PMI Minnesota focuses on developing a community of project managers, advancing the profession of project management, acting as an information distribution forum, and facilitating education in project management. As part of our commitment to community well-being, PMI-MN is proud to support NAMI’s mission to raise awareness, provide education, and reduce stigma around mental health. Sat, Sep 26 2026, 11am - 3pm Register. 1. Support active duty, separated, retired, and spouses of military personnel understand the benefits of a project management accreditation and navigate the application and certification process. 2. Help military personnel and veterans select PMI certifications and help translate their skills and experience to successfully apply for certification. 3. Provide networking, educational, and mentorship opportunities.
What it reported doing in 2023
Monthly meeting - the membership meetings are usually breakfast or dinner meetings with a program. The information conveyed relates to project management techniques and their application within the local community.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 85% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 30
- Sustainability: 63
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
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: 0%; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 11.8%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.69; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: -5.1% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $135K reported
- Consistency: 10 of 11 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2023
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.