Golden Valley Community Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 760734171
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2023, Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2016
- Location
- Golden Valley, MN, USA
- Phone
- 6125670086
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Human Service Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $83,474
- Expenses
- $57,204
- Assets
- $154,426
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DEAN PENK (PRESIDENT)
- CLAUDIA DAML (VICE PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- HELENE JOHNSON (DIRECTOR)
- ERIC MARQUARDT (DIRECTOR)
- DEAN PENK (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To enhance the quality of life, improving our neighborhoods and city. We support a variety of local nonprofits through grants and special projects.
What it reported doing in 2024
Small sparks grants continued in 2024 - small sparks grants fund community initiatives up to $1,000 that might not find funding. Grants awarded in 2024 funded projects like weekly free yoga classes at the farmers market, a young person concert with the golden valley orchestra, springboard for the arts; scholarships for children enrolled in the ymca's early childhood learning center, located in a neighboring city, but which serves golden valley residents; funded a local chorale group that provides free concerts in the community; and providing supplies for a service night at meadowbrook elementary school.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 76% for direct work, and 24% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 60
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 74
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 51.2%; rating input score 51
- Program expense ratio: 74.8%; rating input score 75
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 31.5%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.7; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 16.7% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 17.7% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 51.2% of revenue deployed · 74.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 4 filed program accomplishments · $43K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 51/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.