School Finance Research Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
922760615
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Lansing, MI, USA
Phone
2482092000
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$833,372
Expenses
$10,043,313
Assets
$16,775,471
Liabilities
$35

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dr Daveda Colbert (President)
  • Jamie Huber (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Dr Daveda Colbert (President)
  • Jason Mellema (Treasurer)
  • Jamie Huber (Vice President)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The School Finance Research Foundation was formed for the following purposes: A. To complete the Michigan School Infrastructure Study and Michigan School Energy Audit as funded by the State of Michigan and defined in Sections 11y and 11aa of the State School Aid Act, Public Act 144 of 2022 (11y) and Public Act 103 of 2023 (11aa); B. To conduct other activities in further promotion of public education; C. To receive and administer funds for the benefit of public education and to lessen the financial burdens of the Michigan public schools and the Michigan Department of Education; D. To raise funds from governmental units and the general public to promote public education; and E. To do such things and to perform such acts to accomplish its purposes as the Board of Directors may determine to be appropriate and as are not forbidden by Section 501(c)(3) of the Code, with all the power conferred on nonprofit corporations under the laws of the State of Michigan.

What it reported doing in 2025

State allocated funds for the 11y Infrastructure Study - The Study will consist of non-invasive facility condition assessments of the approximately 3,000 school buildings operated by Michigan's over 500 public school districts. Pursuant to Section 11y, the School Finance Research Foundation ("SFRF") will engage third-party Michigan-based professional construction firms (the "Engineers") to perform the individual school building facility assessments. Following the assessments, the Engineers will report to SFRF either of the following: 1) What investments, if any, are required to ensure that the building meets health, safety, and wellness standards and the estimated cost of the investments, if the Engineer does not determine that the most cost-effective way to bring a building to health, safety, and wellness standards is new construction. 2) The estimated cost of the new construction that meets the education needs of the student population currently being served by the existing building if the Engineer determines that the most cost-effective way to bring a building to health, safety, and wellness standards is new construction. Once all building facility assessments are completed, the SFRF will share the information obtained with the local districts. Additionally, SFRF will aggregate and summarize all information and data received from the Engineers and prepare a final report summarizing the results of all building facility assessments and provide the final report to the Michigan House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on School Aid, the State of Michigan Budget Director, the House and Senate Fiscal Agencies, and the Michigan Department of Education, as required by Section 11y.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

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

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: Limited
  • 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: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1,105.1%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.67; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 52.3% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -139.8% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -42.2% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $10M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $7.1M reported
  • Consistency: 39 of 39 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.