The Front Line Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 474249389
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2015, Form 990-N 2017
- Location
- St Louis Park, MN, USA
- Phone
- 6514020306
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Law Enforcement
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $122,925
- Expenses
- $153,684
- Assets
- $125,750
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- SUZANNE HOLT (PRESIDENT &)
Highest reported compensation
- SUZANNE HOLT (PRESIDENT &): $70,667 total reported compensation
- JUSTIN ZENANKO (CO-CHAIR, TR): $19,956 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of the front line foundation, a Minnesota nonprofit organization, is to back the badge and support our fallen heroes including law enforcement officers, swat team members, firefighters, emts, and Minnesota national guard members. The foundation works to provide: financial support to those who have died while in the line of duty while serving in the state of Minnesota, by awarding benefit payments to dependents of the fallen first responder(s); and underwriting scholarships and training registration costs for members of law enforcement and swat teams, as well as support preparedness training for safety officers in hospitals, schools, and churches; assistance with the purchase of needed safety and tactical equipment not currently within the budget of the local unit of government; and financial support to those who have been injuried while in the line of duty to help with their recovery.
What it reported doing in 2025
Financial support to those who have died while in the line of duty while serving the state of Minnesota, by awarding benefit payments to dependents of fallen first responder(s). Underwriting scholarships and ttraining registration costs of members of law enforcement and swat teams, as well as support for preparedness training for safety officers in hospitals, schools, and churches. Assitance with the purchased of needed safety and tactical equipment not currently within the budget of the local unit of government.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 80% for direct work, and 20% for grants.
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 expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 89
- Transparency & Controls: 80
- Accountability: 63
- Sustainability: 24
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 63.5%; rating input score 63; 47th 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 9 controls in place; rating input score 11
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -25%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.82; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 59%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 1 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $154K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $71K · 14 people listed
- Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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: 7 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.