Guardian Trust Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043625771
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Clearwater, FL, USA
Phone
7272101185
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Centers to Support the Independence of Specific Populations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,005,714
Expenses
$4,980,216
Assets
$152,155
Liabilities
$45,000

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TRAVIS FINCHUM (PRESIDENT)
  • KOLE LONG (VICE-PRESIDENT/TREASURER)

Highest reported compensation

  • KOLE LONG (VICE-PRESIDENT/TREASURER): $156,812 total reported compensation
  • TRAVIS FINCHUM (PRESIDENT): $153,029 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 promote, further, and support selected charitable activities and organizations that provide goods, services or funding for individuals that meet the social security definition of disabled.

What it reported doing in 2025

The guardian trust foundation supports charitable activities and organizations that provide goods, services or funding for the underprivileged, the disadvantaged, and for individuals of any age who are disabled. Activities include: providing grants to local non-profits serving disabled persons, supporting local non-profits serving disabled persons, and acting as trustee of several special needs pooled trusts (snpt) to prudently manage assets, ensuring the long-term financial well-being of snpt beneficiaries.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 79% 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 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 66
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.4%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 88.9%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.1%; rating input score 98; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.5%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.03; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.3; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.2%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24.6% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 22.2% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.4% of revenue deployed · 88.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $157K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $3.5M reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 15 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 13 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 49/100.