Thrive for Life Prison Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
815342358
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2123377544
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Inmate Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,396,919
Expenses
$1,708,490
Assets
$3,355,372
Liabilities
$939,813

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ZACHARIAH F PRESUTTI (Founder and Executive Director)
  • Mary Casey (Board Vice President & Secretary)

People named in this filing

  • Coss Marte (Founder CONBODY & Coss Athletics)
  • James Croghan (SuperiorBoston College High School)
  • Philip Judge (PresidentMcQuaid Jesuit HighSchool)

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

The mission of Thrive for Life Prison Project is to transform lives both behind and beyond the prison walls. At Thrive for Life, we envision a world where educational opportunities provide a clear and attainable pathway to a successful and... -See continuation in Schedule O

What it reported doing in 2024

Behind the Walls: Over the past fiscal year, Thrive for Life has continued to expand its transformative spiritual and educational outreach within correctional facilities across the New York metropolitan area, including Rikers Island.Through our prison ministry and retreat work, we have reached over 17,000 incarcerated men and women, offering them hope, healing, and spiritual formation grounded in the Ignatian tradition. These retreats provide an opportunity for deep reflection, renewal, and the rediscovery of human dignity amidst the challenges of incarceration.In addition to retreat programming, more than 10,000 individuals behind the walls have received Thrive for Lifes monthly newsletter, which features spiritual exercises, reflections, and messages of encouragement designed to inspire ongoing spiritual growth and resilience. -See continuation in Schedule O

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 94% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 72
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.6%; rating input score 49
  • Program expense ratio: 68.2%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 95.7%; rating input score 96; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 28.7%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.96; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.28; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 25.3% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 25.2% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 32.7% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.6% of revenue deployed · 68.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 27 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 49/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.