Uplift Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
371856584
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Castle Rock, CO, USA
Phone
2128403456
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$755,152
Expenses
$728,228
Assets
$69,709
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HOLLY LEV (DIRECTOR AND PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID BRAND (DIRECTOR, VICE PRESIDENT,)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAVID BRAND (DIRECTOR, VICE PRESIDENT,): $150,000 total reported compensation
  • EDWARD SCOTT MACINNIS (DIRECTOR): $120,000 total reported compensation
  • ELIZABETH MORGAN (DIRECTOR AND SECRETARY): $10,578 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Uplift foundation was organized exclusively to make gifts of its income and much of its principal as the directors determine consistent with section 4942 of the internal revenue code to such tax-exempt religious, charitable, holistic health, scientific, literary, environmental, and educational institutions as the directors, in their sole discretion, shall select.

What it reported doing in 2024

To support organizations such as tax-exempt religious, charitable, holistic health, scientific, literary, environmental, and educational institutions through cash gifts. Financial grant and program guidance to support other select tax exempt organizations aligned with the uplift mission and purpose.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 66% for direct work, and 34% for grants.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. 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: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 43
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 52.7%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 54.7%; rating input score 55
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 96.4%; rating input score 96; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.6%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.1; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.8%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -16.7% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 52.7% of revenue deployed · 54.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $398K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $150K · 4 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $109K reported
  • Consistency: 16 of 18 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 8 filed related-organization links
  • 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 53/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 55/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • 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.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.