Central Florida Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 593182886
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Orlando, FL, USA
- Phone
- 4078723050
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community Foundations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $14,727,750
- Expenses
- $8,329,244
- Assets
- $119,711,384
- Liabilities
- $1,185,887
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
21 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MARK BREWER (PRESIDENT/CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- MARK BREWER (PRESIDENT/CEO): $253,111 total reported compensation
- MEGHAN WARRICK (EVP/CFO): $160,519 total reported compensation
- SANDI VIDAL (VP OF COMMUNITY STRATEGIES): $159,265 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
As our region's community foundation, central Florida foundation serves as a launchpad for high-impact philanthropy through the collective power of head, heart and dollar, targeting today's most critical challenges.
What it reported doing in 2025
The foundation gave grants to 350 nonprofits for a variety of charitable purposes in central Florida and across the united states. These grants help to address a variety of needs from the day to day operations of nonprofits to addressing the root causes of the most pressing social issues. The grant-making program includes awarding scholarships to students furthering their education through technical and career education, undergraduate and graduate programs locally and beyond.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 62% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 78% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 83
- Transparency & Controls: 66
- Accountability: 96
- Sustainability: 83
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 91.5%; rating input score 91
- Program expense ratio: 86.2%; rating input score 86
- Fundraising efficiency: $10.96 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: 97.8%; rating input score 98; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 43.4%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 14.37; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 8.5%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 91.5% of revenue deployed · 86.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 17 of 18 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $7.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $253K · 21 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $135K reported
- Consistency: 37 of 40 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
- Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 154 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 153 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: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 36/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.