Liftfund Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 742712770
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- San Antonio, TX, USA
- Phone
- 2102263664
- Rating
- 87
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Small Business Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $30,110,957
- Expenses
- $27,680,199
- Assets
- $116,870,475
- Liabilities
- $81,537,627
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
20 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- AMY HEREFORD (President & CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- AMY HEREFORD (President & CEO): $276,321 total reported compensation
- CHRISTOPHER S ALLEN (SVP SBA 504): $246,576 total reported compensation
- ADAM HENSON (COO & CFO): $231,222 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Liftfunds mission is to transform lives by offering financial resources and support services designed to promote economic empowerment and uplift entrepreneurs, small businesses, their neighbors and surrounding communities.
What it reported doing in 2025
Liftfund provides credit and other services to small businesses that do not haveaccess to loans from commercial sources. Under direct lending operations, liftfundprovided 766 micro and small business loans, and under the sba 504 program, 43 newloans were closed in the fiscal year ended 12/31/2025. With more than $69.9 million in loans outstanding as of december 31, 2025, liftfund is regarded as one of the largest and best performing microfinance institutions in the united states. Liftfundcomplemented its capital with 4,327 hours of technical assistance provided to 2,265entrepreneurs. Through its loans and services, liftfund has helped create or retainthousands of jobs in low to moderate income areas, contributing to the economicrevitalization of underserved communities.
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 75% for direct work, and 25% for grants.
- 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: 86
- Transparency & Controls: 86
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 55
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 88.9%; rating input score 89
- Program expense ratio: 93.5%; rating input score 93
- Fundraising efficiency: $17.23 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- 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: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 8.1%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.22; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.7; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.5%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 88.9% of revenue deployed · 93.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $25.9M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $276K · 20 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.9M reported
- Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 4 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 50/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 53/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.