National Space Grant Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
522288711
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Albany, OR, USA
Phone
2025363030
Rating
88
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,739,505
Expenses
$2,661,917
Assets
$3,516,996
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KEVIN D FREESE (FORMER CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
  • DR FRANK MCDONALD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHIRLEY CAMPBELL (ASSISTANT DIRECTOR): $69,750 total reported compensation
  • KEVIN D FREESE (FORMER CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $61,020 total reported compensation
  • DR FRANK MCDONALD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $6,056 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 support and enhance all space grant consortia to facilitate education, research, and public outreach activities in science, mathematics, engineering, technology and additional fields related to space, aeronautics, aviation, and earth system science.

What it reported doing in 2025

The foundation endeavors to:- increase the financial and governmental support available to space grant consortia. The 52 space grant consortia represent every state, puerto rico, and the district of columbia. Each consortium is made up of colleges, universities, businesses, and other private and public sector institutions - all working to further nasa-related education and career training through: a) supporting student scholarships, fellowships, and internshipsb) providing support to faculty and students for career developmentc) offering experiential learning opportunities aligned with nasa strategic enterprisesd) stimulating public interest and lifelong learning through partnerships with educators at all levels, thus increasing public appreciation for the direct and indirect benefits of the u.s. Space program-publicize the objectives and relevant activities of the foundation.-seek to develop mutually beneficial relationships among private sector organizations, government agencies, colleges and universities.-never seek to influence the activities of the local, state, and federal governments.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 84% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 52% for direct work, and 48% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 94.2%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 93.4%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.19 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.7%; rating input score 100; 46th 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: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 2.8%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.32; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.1%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 94.2% of revenue deployed · 93.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $70K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 34 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 31 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.