Gcsaa Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
590994338
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Lawrence, KS, USA
Phone
7858412240
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,714,763
Expenses
$1,929,226
Assets
$13,608,030
Liabilities
$404,212

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TA BARKER CGCS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JEFF L WHITE CGCS (PRESIDENT)
  • KEVIN P BREEN CGCS (PAST PRESIDENT (THRU 2/24))
  • J RHETT EVANS (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • J RHETT EVANS (CEO): $676,225 total reported compensation
  • KEVIN P SUNDERMAN CGCS (COO): $348,826 total reported compensation
  • EDWARD SEVERAL (CMO): $301,707 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Secure funding and support to strengthen advocacy, education, and research that advances the work of golf course management professionals.

What it reported doing in 2024

Provide grants for the purpose of the development of new continuing education with an environmental focus. Scholarships are awarded annually to students pursuing careers in the golf course industry, future turfgrass researchers and educators, and children and grandchildren of gcsaa members. All scholarships are awarded according to a list of criteria, including academic achievement, extracurricular and community involvement, leadership and outside employment. Scholarship applications are evaluated by the scholarship committee, except in the case of scholarships to children and grandchildren of gcsaa members, which are evaluated by an independent committee of three educators.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 62% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 97% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 58
  • Sustainability: 79
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.6%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 86.6%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.46 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.6%; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 42.9%; rating input score 43; 7th 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: 28.9%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.05; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.9%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.6% of revenue deployed · 86.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $676K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 11 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 43/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.