Grand View Christian School Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
472382286
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Des Moines, IA, USA
Phone
5157773977
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$228,784
Expenses
$139,996
Assets
$4,126,998
Liabilities
$2,835,629

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RANDALL KNODE (President)
  • RYAN FRY (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRIS MURPHY (SUPERINTENDENT): $150,965 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To receive, accumulate, invest, manage, and disburse money and property of every kind, whether restricted or unrestricted, to be used exclusively for the support and aid of the christian education programs of schools operated by grand view christian school association (gvcsa) for so long as gvcsa remains qualified as an exempt organization under section 501(c)3 of the internal revenue code, as amended. To this end, the earnings and assets of the foundation shall be applied, in accordance with the donor's intent, if any, to promote curriculum research and development, expand and enrich faculty positions, improve faculty compensation, support building development and improvement, provide scholarships for students attending schools operated by gvcsa, and to support any other program or need of gvcsa as supported by its board of directors, all without regard to sex, race, color, national, or ethnic origin or disability.

What it reported doing in 2025

Building facilities and equipment program - the foundation raises funds to purchase building facilities and equipment for use by the association for the functions of the grand view christian school association. Funds are also raised for future expansion and building projects.

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 67% for direct work, and 33% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.3%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 95.5%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: 38.8%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 29.48; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.69; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.6%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.9% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.7% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.3% of revenue deployed · 95.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 15 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $134K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $151K · 18 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.