Grand Rapids Chamber
Legal name: Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 380592500
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Grand Rapids, MI, US
- Phone
- (616) 771-0300
- Rating
- 71
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,867,233
- Expenses
- $6,217,746
- Assets
- $9,870,145
- Liabilities
- $8,301,626
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
22 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Rick Baker (CEO)
- James Byl (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Rick Baker (CEO): $383,610 total reported compensation
- Kate Wezeman (VP of Finance and Operations): $191,074 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Grand Rapids Chamber is the voice of the West Michigan business community and the premier business membership organization in the region.
What it reported doing in 2025
Member Services - Strengthen the Chambers membership and improve services to members with special emphasis on member recruitment, retention and activation through continued communication with members. Discount programs for members included office supplies, workers comp insurance, tuition discounts, fuel, and internet service. Publication of our bi-monthly e-newsletter highlights members and offers advertising opportunities. We welcomed 570 new members and retained 83% of our current members.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 75% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 70
- Transparency & Controls: 60
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 26
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 80.7%; rating input score 81
- Program expense ratio: 76%; rating input score 76
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: -6%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.59; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.84; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 9.2%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 75% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 14.6% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 80.7% of revenue deployed · 76% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 23 of 23 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $384K · 22 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $487K reported
- Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 3 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.