Nourish Up

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
561398498
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Charlotte, NC, USA
Phone
7045234333
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Emergency Assistance

Reported finances

Revenue
$13,797,742
Expenses
$11,137,535
Assets
$44,408,885
Liabilities
$195,379

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Tina Postel (CEO)
  • R Michael Elliot (Past President)
  • Meredith Jeffries (Vice President)
  • Nicolle Lewis (President)
  • Jose Ruiz (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Tina Postel (CEO): $171,997 total reported compensation
  • Danielle Moore (COO): $102,907 total reported compensation
  • Lucy Mitchell (CDO): $100,786 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To reduce the incidence of hunger and malnutrition in Mecklenburg County by procuring and distributing groceries to people facing economic hardships and to deliver daily meals in a caring and friendly manner to individuals in our community who are unable due to age or infirmary to prepare their own meals.

What it reported doing in 2024

Nourish Up delivers more than 300 meals daily to the elderly, handicapped, and convalescing people who are unable or greatly restricted in their ability to prepare or secure meals and who reside within an area we can reach with our corps of drivers. Deliveries are at the lunch hour but the meal is a full one, more like what many people are accustomed to for dinner. This meal consists of two separate containers, one with meat or fish, vegetables and such, the other with carbohydrate, salad or fruit and dessert. Diet orders are obtained for all clients from their doctors, and a range of special diets are available to fill doctor's written orders for certain medical conditions. While all recipients are asked to pay for the meals based on their ability to pay, recipient income alone does not pay for Nourish Up. Sponsors include approximately 80 faith-based communities and organization, as well as civic organizations and businesses. Other groups welcome donations of time as volunteers or as donors of the financial resources that allow us to serve all who need nutritious meals.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 64% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.8%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: 82.9%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.74 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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; 66th 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: 19.3%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.99; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.4%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.1% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 25.3% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.8% of revenue deployed · 82.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 24 of 24 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $9.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $172K · 23 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 40/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.