Lift USA

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201746216
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Chicago, IL, United States
Phone
312.522.1075
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support
Affiliation
Religious (unspecified)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$138,410
Expenses
$211,045
Assets
$288,228
Liabilities
$287,655

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHELE COHEN (EXECUTIVE DI): $36,061 total reported compensation
  • JILL DREYER (EXECUTIVE DI): $30,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

LIFT USA (Leading India’s Future Today) is dedicated to providing a holistic educational and leadership development program for underprivileged youth in Tamil Nadu, India, including a supportive home environment, tuition, leadership training, and service opportunities. Founded in 2004, LIFT is a holistic educational and leadership development program in Tamil Nadu, India. The program provides a supportive home environment, tuition to high-achieving schools, leadership training, and service opportunities to highly motivated, underprivileged youth. OUR MISSION Leading India’s Future Today (LIFT) is dedicated to developing leadership excellence in motivated and talented youth in Tamil Nadu, India. LIFT provides quality education and a home environment for youth with high potential who would typically be denied schooling due to limited access to resources. LIFT students and staff are...

What it reported doing in 2024

Education, tuition, leadership training, and room and board for students in elementary school, high school and college.

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 86% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 57
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 19
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 66.8%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.78 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd 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: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -52.5%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.37; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 31.3%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.8% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 66.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 15 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $141K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $36K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.