Globaltrust Funds

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
472525808
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
3035912185
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Food Banks, Pantries

Reported finances

Revenue
$18,173
Expenses
$3,212,348
Assets
$250,000
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Terry Williams Founder (Chairman and CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Terry Williams Founder (Chairman and CEO): $3,699 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

GlobalTrust Funds' primary program is hunger relief. The public charity receives in-kind donations of food and other personal resources from national retail stores aligned with our mission, We then redistribute the food and other personal products to the communities we serve through community groups, churches, and volunteers. GlobalTrust Funds support approbatively 650 families per day that are facing food insecurity in their lives. We are in the early-stage development process of building a national Donor Advised Funds sponsorship in other regions of the United States to support donors and communities in need of new programs affordable housing, healthcare, quality education and protecting women and children from human trafficking.

What it reported doing in 2025

GlobalTrust Funds is in the development of our national rollout of our donor-advised funds sponsorship program. As a public charity we have developed the DAF platform, software systems, marketing materials in preparation of the national rollout.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 95
  • Transparency & Controls: 52
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 13
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 99.8%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.72 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 75%; rating input score 75; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 23rd 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -17,576.5%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.08; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.1%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.1% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 99.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $3.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $4K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 37 of 41 current checks pass · 4 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Fund balance restriction sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule M noncash within contributions did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.