St Paul Labor Studies & Resource Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
363569973
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
St Paul, MN, USA
Phone
6512223787
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$180,055
Expenses
$106,595
Assets
$551,813
Liabilities
$36,001

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

33 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KERA PETERSON (PRESIDENT)
  • PERRY SCHMIDT (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT)
  • BRIAN BEEDLE (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • CONNIE BEISSEL (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MARTIN HOERTH (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MICHAEL MADDEN (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • KERA PETERSON (PRESIDENT)
  • PERRY SCHMIDT (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT)
  • BRIAN BEEDLE (VICE PRESIDENT)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide and foster programs to educate the general community, policy makers and workers; and promote community debate and changes in our economy and society, and how these changes affect work and workplace issues; and advocate for policies that will shape a better social contract for workers and their families; and assist workers and the unemployed in need of social services in finding resources available to them.

What it reported doing in 2025

To educate the general community, policy makers and workers about changes in today's workplace and the economy, and promote community debate about how these changes affect workers, the workplace and our communities. When necessary, the st. Paul labor studies and resource center may be involved in providing direct service to those impacted by changes in the workplace.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 80% for direct work, and 20% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.8%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 80.8%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $17.48 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 20th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 40.8%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.18; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.9% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.9% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 47.8% of revenue deployed · 80.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 29 of 29 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $86K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 33 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 52/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.