Great Lakes Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
363843113
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New Baltimore, MI, USA
Phone
8109844500
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$19,262
Expenses
$33,312
Assets
$565,098
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DOUG JACKSON (PRESIDENT)
  • JOE MCKEOWN (VICE-PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DOUG JACKSON (PRESIDENT)
  • JOE MCKEOWN (VICE-PRESIDENT)
  • JAMES AUSTIN (SECRETARY)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The foundation's mission includes: 1. Promoting marine safety through education and information about boating practices, harbors and anchorages in the great lakes; 2. Protecting and preserving wilderness areas associated with cruising; 3. Enhancing the appreciation of the great lakes and its unique boating opportunities by boaters and the general public; 4. Encouraging the study and preservation of the marine environment; and 5. Supporting the development or repair of important marine infrastructure.

What it reported doing in 2024

The foundation makes grants to charitable organizations to promote marine safety, to support access to boating activities for the disadvantaged and disabled and to encourage the preservation of the marine environment and infrastructure.

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 83% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 53
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 92.7%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 36.5%; rating input score 36; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: -72.9%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 16.96; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.4% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 92.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 24 of 24 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $31K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 18 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes foreign activity
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.