The Global Uplift Project
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 208800729
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2021–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2020
- Location
- Livermore, CA, USA
- Phone
- 6505753434
- Rating
- 64
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- International Relief
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $620,682
- Expenses
- $586,862
- Assets
- $194,074
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- Robert Freeman (Executive Dir.): $24,000 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Global Uplift Project (TGUP) helps the worlds children learn by building small-scale, high impact educational infrastructure projects in developing countries. These include classrooms, libraries, science labs, playgrounds, and other projects that improve life chances for some of the poorest people in the world. 100% of every dollar donated to TGUP goes to the donors intended project.
What it reported doing in 2025
This year TGUP made the following accomplishments: Completed 130 small scale education infrastructure projects in 13 developing world countries. Those included: Classrooms in Zambia, Guatemala, Cameroon, Kenya, and Uganda.Made and distributed 28,576 of our Save a Girl sanitary hygiene kits to adolescent girls in six countries.Began a campaign in Uganda to install 50 of our Science Labs in a Box product to raise the scientific literacy of the country.Built latrines, water systems, gardens, and playgrounds, and delivered shoes, desks, dormitory mattresses, mosquito nets, and more in countries of Latin America, Africa, and South Asia. Over their full durations, with some projects lasting 30 years and more, these projects will help 934,000 of the worlds poorest people have a better chance in life.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 98% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 77
- Transparency & Controls: 70
- Accountability: 24
- Sustainability: 43
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 85.4%; rating input score 85
- Program expense ratio: 90.3%; rating input score 90
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
- Requires narrative reports: Fail
- Conducts field audits: Fail
- May suspend future funding: Fail
- Requires financial reports: Fail
- Conducts site visits: Fail
- Requires grant agreements: Fail
- May require repayment: Fail
- Grant itemization coverage: 95.5%; rating input score 95; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 57
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Limited
- Other executive compensation review process: Limited
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 5.4%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.33; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.1%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 22.8% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 15.7% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 14.8% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 85.4% of revenue deployed · 90.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $530K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $24K · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
- 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.