Our Upstate Sc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
451842000
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2011
Location
Greenville, SC, USA
Phone
8642830345
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Improvement, Capacity Building N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$496,253
Expenses
$502,491
Assets
$5,111
Liabilities
$1,074

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DEAN HYBL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • ERWIN MADDREY (DIRECTOR)
  • AMANDA MUNYAN (DIRECTOR)
  • TERENCE ROBERTS (DIRECTOR)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our upstate-sc was formed for the purpose of implementing portions of the our upstate vision, which was developed by the organization known as ten at the top through engagement of over 10,000 upstate residents. Our upstate-sc coordinates the development of task forces and (cont.)

What it reported doing in 2025

Initiative 2: resilient upstate: the resilient upstate behavioral health collaborative is an effort to leverage the individual and collective expertise, experience, opportunities, and challenges of all entities engaged in supporting behavioral health in the upstate sc region. The primary partners for the effort are the South Carolina office of rural health (scorh), the South Carolina department of public health (scdph), and ten at the top. In 2025, the collaborative unveiled several regional resources, including the workplace toolkit and the behavioral health careers summaries.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 70% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 47
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.1%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 52.4%; rating input score 52
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.3%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.01; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.9% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.1% of revenue deployed · 52.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $263K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.