South Carolina Upstate Eft

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
393113081
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Greenville, SC, USA
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Mental Health Association

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,167
Expenses
$2,317
Assets
$1,850

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Rachel Chiu (President & Chair)

People named in this filing

  • Rachel Chiu (President & Chair)
  • Jonathan Kittel (Treasurer)
  • Caroline Allison (Secretary)

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

Overview

Mission

SC Upstate EFT is organized exclusively for charitable and educational purposes. The organization exists to promote mental health and relational well-being by advancing the understanding and application of Emotionally Focused Therapy EFT. It provides education training and professional development for therapists as well as resources and information for the public to improve the quality and accessibility of effective evidence-based care for individuals couples and families.

What it reported doing in 2025

During its initial year the organization focused on foundational development and preparation for future program activities. Key accomplishments included forming and organizing a governing board conducting regular board meetings and developing the organizations website to support future educational and training initiatives. The organization also engaged in community outreach efforts including small group gatherings to share its mission build awareness and invite initial support. These activities established the organizational and operational framework necessary to begin offering educational programming and professional training in future periods. No formal training programs were conducted during the year as the organization was in its startup and development phase.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 44.4%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.8; rating input score 42; 42nd 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: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 42/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.