Grand Valley University Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
386086770
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Allendale, MI, USA
Phone
6163312831
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,002,872
Expenses
$989,084
Assets
$5,033,817
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

89 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LAURA A MEENGS-AIKENS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • GREGORY J SANIAL (TREASURER): $381,886 total reported compensation
  • LAURA A MEENGS-AIKENS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $356,589 total reported compensation
  • THOMAS J HAAS (DIRECTOR - PART YEAR): $178,584 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The grand valley university foundation provides support to grand valley state university to assist in its goals and mission. This support provides grants and scholarships, faculty and academic program development, capital maintenance and growth, and long-term fiscal security.

What it reported doing in 2024

Funds raised by the grand valley university foundation between july 1, 2024 and june 30, 2025 were transferred to grand valley state university (gvsu) for use in meeting capital, operating, and instructional needs; including student scholarships and faculty support. Some gifts were also made to endowment, helping address restricted needs (e.g. Scholarships and special programming) and to provide long-term fiscal stability through unrestricted endowment. These programs directly and indirectly benefited approximately 22,000 students enrolled at gvsu during the year, as well as benefited the community through specific programs and overall economic impact of gvsu spending.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 77% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 94% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.2%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 84.3%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.27 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 1.4%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.09; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.6%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.2% of revenue deployed · 84.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $833K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $382K · 89 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 5 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.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 47/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.