Pushing for Pink

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
831810303
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Granada Hills, CA, USA
Phone
8184317555
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Biomedicine, Bioengineering

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$44,319
Expenses
$78,583
Assets
$68,276
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MATHEW MATTHEWS (PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • MATHEW MATTHEWS (PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • GARY ROGERS (SECRETARY)
  • ALICIA SIERRA (TREASURER)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our goal is to wash away the feelings of separation and loneliness that come with watching someone you love battle cancer. Our method is to host fundraising events in celebration of loved ones who have won, lost or are currently battling breast cancer.

What it reported doing in 2024

Pushing for pink is a 501 (c)(3) tax-exempt non-profit organization founded by gary rogers and mathew matthews. In 2015 p4p was created in an attempt to nurture the growth of breast cancer awareness and philanthropy amongst young adults, starting with our own community of skateboarders. Our goal is to wash away the feelings of separation and loneliness that come with watching someone you love battle cancer. Our method is to host fundraising events in celebration of loved ones who have won, lost or are currently battling breast cancer.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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 - 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: 46
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.8%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 33.2%; rating input score 33
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.31 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: -77.3%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.87; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -53.7% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -56.8% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -48.6% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.8% of revenue deployed · 33.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $26K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 15 of 15 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 59/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 33/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 18/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.