Pour Out Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
333101519
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Greenville, SC, USA
Phone
8649820545
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Support N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$292,254
Expenses
$106,227
Assets
$186,027
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Grant Lockridge (Executive Director)
  • Steve Lockridge (President)
  • Todd Roper (Advisory Board President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Grant Lockridge (Executive Director): $26,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Pour Out Project equips and supports small to mid-sized nonprofits through strategic coaching fundraising development and operational guidance to increase their impact and sustainability.

What it reported doing in 2025

Pour Out Project provided strategic coaching fundraising development and operational support to small and mid-sized nonprofits. Services included one-on-one consulting sessions organizational assessments fundraising strategy development and ongoing advisory support. The organization worked directly with multiple nonprofits to strengthen leadership improve financial sustainability and expand program impact within their communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 68
  • Sustainability: 72
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 35%; rating input score 35
  • Program expense ratio: 96.4%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: $75.22 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 26th 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: 80%; rating input score 80; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 63.7%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.75; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.5%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 35% of revenue deployed · 96.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $102K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $26K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 42 of 45 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 35/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ConferencesMeetings column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.