Golden Gate University

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
941585735
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
1-415-442-7800
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
University or Technological Institute

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$48,222,617
Expenses
$59,055,075
Assets
$93,641,950
Liabilities
$26,584,047

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID FIKE (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAVID FIKE (PRESIDENT): $583,067 total reported compensation
  • ELAINE CLARK (VP FOR FINANCE & ADMIN AND CFO): $339,587 total reported compensation
  • COURTNEY BORTON (CHIEF MKTG/VP MKTG/ENROL(THRU 8/7/24)): $298,217 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Education for the Future of Work. Built for Working Adults.

What it reported doing in 2024

Higher education is the university's sole mission and program. Ggu offers undergraduate degrees in business and management, and graduate degrees in law, taxation, business and related professions through courses offered in san francisco and online courses offered throughout the united states and internationally. Full time enrollment (fte) for the academic year 2024-2025 was 5,781.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 72% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 87% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
  • 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. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.2%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 70.5%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.09 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -22.5%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.59; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.28; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.4%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.1% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.5% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
  • Where the money goes: 87.2% of revenue deployed · 70.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $41.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $583K · 21 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $799K reported
  • Consistency: 41 of 42 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 11 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 48/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.