PushBlack

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
813834388
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2026817109
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Voter Education, Registration

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,204,376
Expenses
$5,034,619
Assets
$5,232,541
Liabilities
$120,863

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JULIAN WALKER (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (UNTIL 5/25))
  • UZO OMETU (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (AS OF 11/25))

Highest reported compensation

  • JULIAN WALKER (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (UNTIL 5/25)): $395,646 total reported compensation
  • GELILA WORKNEH (CHIEF CONTENT OFFICER): $245,271 total reported compensation
  • DAONESE JOHNSON-COLON (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $196,372 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

PushBlack's mission is to inspire Black Americans to take liberating actions in the best interest of Black communities.

What it reported doing in 2025

Education & civic engagement: pushblack uses the power of narrative, especially black history, to educate and activate subscribers to build personal power and create lasting economic and political change.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 79% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 85
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 62.6%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.5 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -318%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.04; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 35.8%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 21.7% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.5% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 62.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $396K · 15 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.