Grand Traverse Regional Community Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 383056434
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Traverse City, MI, USA
- Phone
- 2319354066
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community Foundations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $9,842,275
- Expenses
- $5,795,369
- Assets
- $120,893,107
- Liabilities
- $89,182
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
28 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DAVE MENGEBIER (PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUT)
- STEVEN WADE (VICE PRESIDENT COMMUNITY I)
- PAUL KESTER (VICE PRESIDENT FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION)
Highest reported compensation
- DAVE MENGEBIER (PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUT): $180,584 total reported compensation
- ALISON METIVA (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $139,107 total reported compensation
- STEVEN WADE (VICE PRESIDENT COMMUNITY I): $124,037 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
We spark positive change by inspiring generosity, caring for resources, and supporting our communities, now and forever.
What it reported doing in 2025
The foundation plays a collaborative leadership role in the region. In 2025, this work included continuing to convene cross-sector leaders to develop and implement a community development coalition to move the needle in areas of greatest need by working together, hosting a speaker series around local issue areas, and engaging in collaborative public policy advocacy. In addition, the foundation is the host for press forward northern Michigan, a local chapter of a national coalition working to support and strengthen access to reliable local news and information. Support in 2025 included funding for a local news collaboration project.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 87% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 72
- Transparency & Controls: 75
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 83
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 76.5%; rating input score 77
- Program expense ratio: 79.7%; rating input score 80
- Fundraising efficiency: $7.29 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- 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: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 90.7%; rating input score 91; 32nd 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; 63rd 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: 41.1%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 20.86; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 9.7%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 76.5% of revenue deployed · 79.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 24 of 24 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $181K · 28 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2015 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 120 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 97 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.
- 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 25/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.