For the Struggle Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 834652690
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2019
- Location
- Charlotte, NC, USA
- Phone
- 7048006628
- Rating
- 67
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Human Service Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,098,302
- Expenses
- $1,199,171
- Assets
- $2,244,032
- Liabilities
- $447,825
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
2 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Alesha S Brown (Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- Alesha S Brown (Executive Director): $89,358 total reported compensation
- Stacey Hamilton (Bookkeeper): $63,852 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
It is the mission of FTS to zealously fight systemic issues of economic and social injustice by responding to issues identified by impacted communities, advocating with and on behalf of such communities.
What it reported doing in 2025
FTS's second focus area is its Eatmon Project that focuses on educating and engaging black voters. This program has existed since 2019, and FTS has educated and engaged more than 10,000 voters to date. In 2024, the Eatmon Project engaged and mobilized Black voters, ensuring they had the information and support needed to participate in the electoral process. Between October 24 and November 2, the organization completed 161.75 hours of phone banking with 26 volunteers. Additionally, For the Struggle hosted poll monitoring and polling place parties at two sites during early voting and five sites on Election Day, with the assistance of 15 workers during early voting and 26 workers on Election Day. These workers created a welcoming and supportive environment for voters, providing everyone with donuts, coffee, pizza, and water while ensuring no voter suppression activities took place. Through our work at the polls, we were able to engage more than 1,200 voters in 2024.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 75% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 62
- Transparency & Controls: 87
- Accountability: 37
- Sustainability: 65
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 48.3%; rating input score 48
- Program expense ratio: 82.2%; rating input score 82
- Fundraising efficiency: $39.26 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 42.9%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.87; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 12.8%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 42.9% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 40.2% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 46.3% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 48.3% of revenue deployed · 82.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $986K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $89K · 2 people listed
- Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
- 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: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.