Grafton Parks & Recreation Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
852804875
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Grafton, ND, USA
Phone
7013521842
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$256,854
Expenses
$198,701
Assets
$77,989
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • William Dahl (President)
  • Amy Petersen (Vice-President)

People named in this filing

  • William Dahl (President)
  • Amy Petersen (Vice-President)
  • Jarrod Steele (Treasurer)

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

Improve the quality of life in Grafton, ND by improving the quality of Grafton Parks & Recreation's parks, facilities, and program equipment.

What it reported doing in 2025

Fundraising for a new outdoor pool to replace the 70-year-old failing outdoor pool. A facility development company was hired to determine the feasibility of an indoor aquatic fitness facility. A local engineering firm was hired to develop the outdoor pool design and determine the best building location for the new pool. A nonprofit project & fund development consultant was hired to obtain major gifts and organize philanthropic opportunities. Revenues were from individual donations, business donations, Grafton Park Board (d.b.a. Grafton Parks & Recreation) donation to partially fund the indoor aquatic fitness facility study, and a 1/4% Grafton sales tax that sunsets in 2044.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 82% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 91% 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.

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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 50.3%; rating input score 50
  • Program expense ratio: 65%; rating input score 65
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.68 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • 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: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 22.6%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.39; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 50.3% of revenue deployed · 65% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $129K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 42 of 43 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 16/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.