Lift Up Carolinas
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 561781080
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2017–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Charlotte, NC, USA
- Phone
- 7045255228
- Rating
- 86
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community Improvement, Capacity Building N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,380,377
- Expenses
- $1,543,799
- Assets
- $8,082,892
- Liabilities
- $143,438
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- LINDA NASH (PRESIDENT-EL)
- NATALIE NORMAN (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- JERI CASEY (SECRETARY)
- EDNA COGGINS (VP MEMBER &)
- DIANA GIBBS (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Lift up carolinas is a nonprofit volunteer organization dedicated to improving the lives of children and families through community-based philanthropic programs.
What it reported doing in 2024
Check hunger was established in 1992 and is designed to alleviate children's hunger by distributing food in these ways: (1) providing weekly take home backpacks to children at risk in charlotte mecklenburg schools - each backpack contains full-size portions of protein, vegetables, fruit and calcium products to supplement the student's and his/her family's weekend meals; (2) sponsoring and operating 16 mobile pantries at 4 high-need schools; (3) supplying metro school, a special needs school of 250 students, snacks for all students and jars of applesauce to assist with administration of medication; (4) providing small electrical appliances and other kitchen items, including food staples, to 30 families moving into permanent housing through habitat for humanity. In 2024-2025, 420 elementary school children were provided with weekend packpacks. Total backpacks provided for the school year were 16,000. Check hunger funded and staffed 16 mobile pantries at 4 schools, serving 2,642 family units. Protein donations to second harvest food bank and loaves and fishes through outside sources provided more than 34,700 pounds of protein-rich food to supplement dies of families in need.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 83% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 80
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 49
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 91.6%; rating input score 92
- Program expense ratio: 80.6%; rating input score 81
- Fundraising efficiency: $5.68 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -11.8%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.24; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 19.1% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 19.7% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 17.9% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 91.6% of revenue deployed · 80.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
- Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 21/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.