Mcguinn Homes Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
208802094
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
Lexington, SC, USA
Phone
8036229636
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Relief

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$431,965
Expenses
$698,474
Assets
$761,971
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

People named in this filing

  • CHRIS WALKUP (BOARD MEMBER)
  • KELLY MCGUINN (BOARD MEMBER)
  • NATE GIBSON (TREASURER)

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

By using business as a catalyst for ministry, we partner with organizations to create sustainable growth and lasting impact. Together, we're exponentially growing god's kingdom and transforming lives, both here at home and around the world.

What it reported doing in 2025

Mcguinn homes foundation adopted "lives impacted" as a primary output measure to more effectively capture the collective impact of the foundation and the nonprofit organizations it supports. This measure reflects the organization's commitment to creating meaningful, lasting change that demonstrates christ's love and advances the life-saving message of the gospel.lives are impacted through a broad range of initiatives, including feeding and clothing underserved populations; providing educational opportunities and mentoring; delivering medical care; assisting with home and automobile repairs; and sharing the gospel both locally and globally.during 2025, a total of 286,168 lives were impactedrepresenting a 915% increase compared to 2024. Scholarship students in haiti significantly expanded their participation in service projects, with alumni also joining in these efforts. Student-led and alumni-supported service activities accounted for 3,845 lives impacted, reflecting a 478% increase in student service engagement.these results demonstrate substantial growth in program reach, volunteer engagement, and overall mission effectiveness.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 83% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 44
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 84.2%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $18.89 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th 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: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 25%; rating input score 25; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -61.7%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.09; rating input score 43; 43rd 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: 20.2% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.6% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 84.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 4 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $588K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 21 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 9 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 25/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 54/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.