Retired Educators Association of Minnesota

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
411319611
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Janesville, MN, USA
Phone
5072345737
Rating
36
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$65,696
Expenses
$83,883
Assets
$413,302
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • John Huisman (Co-President)
  • Barbara Hunter (Co-President)
  • Anita Hellie (Past President)
  • Jennie K Hanson (Past President)

People named in this filing

  • John Huisman (Co-President)
  • Barbara Hunter (Co-President)
  • Tim Moynihan (VPLegislative Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

To inform members of educator retirement concerns and senior issues to improve the economic social civic cultural and professional status of its members to encourage volunteering and civic service projects in our MN communities to seek out ways to contribute to serving the educational system

What it reported doing in 2024

Printed and mailed six 8-page bi-monthly informational newsletters REAM News to connect with our 4600 members Wrote and mailed 38 memorial acknowledgements to sponsoring members who remembered friends and loved ones in the REAM News Memorial section Donated 300 to Faribault Area Retired Educators to add to a civic project to install baby changing station in city building Website mnreamorg Facebook Instagram and Zoom keep members and guests informed on retired educator news meetings benefits travel pension and volunteeremployment opportunities

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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. 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: 82
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -27.7%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.93; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.1%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -102.9% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -15.9% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 18 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.