Grapes for Humanity Global Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
134211024
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Longboat Key, FL, USA
Phone
4164648597
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$177,300
Expenses
$123,081
Assets
$189,157
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ARLENE WILLIS (CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDENT)
  • DR CHRISTINE WHEELER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DREW MITCHELL (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • ARLENE WILLIS (CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDENT)
  • DR CHRISTINE WHEELER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DREW MITCHELL (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

To provide a better quality of life for victims and survivors of disasters and personal tragedies.

What it reported doing in 2025

In 2025, gfh global foundation donated $100,000 proceeds from our legends vi eventto hpital albert schweitzer in haiti's artibonite valley. The hospital serves hundreds of thousands of people in central haiti who are confronting violence, serious health challenges, and food insecurity. We also supported the children's surgical center (csc) in phnom penh, cambodia, which provides life-changing reconstructive surgery to children and adults while training the next generation of cambodian surgeons.(continued schedule o)in addition, gfh helped send two pre-med student volunteers to cambodia, where they contributed their time and skills at lavalla school and the children's surgical center, supporting essential services for local communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 85% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 93% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 70
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 66.6%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 95.8%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: $142.92 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 30.6%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.54; rating input score 52; 52nd 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 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.5% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -8.8% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -8% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 66.6% of revenue deployed · 95.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $118K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.