Push Up and Up Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
454040878
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2017
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Sullivans Island, SC, USA
Phone
8432706000
Rating
36
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,531
Expenses
$33,988
Assets
$3,010

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

People named in this filing

  • LOREN R ZIFF (CO-CHAIRMAN)
  • MINDELLE R ZIFF (CO-CHAIRMAN)
  • KENNETH M BROWN (VICE-CHAIRMAN)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Push-Up & Up was established to help communities decrease dropout rates and increase the chance at lifelong success among at-risk youth.

What it reported doing in 2017

We will establish and build the Push-Up & Up Challenge into a national non-profit organization with a unique, sustainable, and scalable fundraising model. For the 2017 annual Push-Up & Up Challenge, approximately 150 people participated in the event. Of the total participants, approximately 60 students on 10 teams trained and participated in the challenge. Over 53,000 push-ups were completed on event day. Our event solely benefits Communities in Schools of the Charleston Area, which reaches over 10,000 children throughout Charleston and Berkeley counties.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. 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: 6
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 11
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 7.8%; rating input score 8
  • Program expense ratio: 2.6%; rating input score 3

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -194.8%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.09; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -38.9% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -27% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.3% per year; rating input score 0; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 7.8% of revenue deployed · 2.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $898 in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2013 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 8/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.