501Ctech Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510400233
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2022349670
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$989,158
Expenses
$1,048,537
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JULIE A CHAPMAN (PRESIDENT)
  • BARRY HARTZBERG (VICE PRESIDENT OF FINANCE)

Highest reported compensation

  • JULIE A CHAPMAN (PRESIDENT): $69,006 total reported compensation
  • BARRY HARTZBERG (VICE PRESIDENT OF FINANCE): $65,957 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

501ctech helps build the capacity of nonprofits serving the common good by providing innovative and sustainable technology solutions. 501ctech does this by providing hands-on support to more than 70 nonprofits across the greater dc area. Through our work, we help them to serve vulnerable populations, protect the environment, increase access to healthcare, maintain a vibrant and creative culture, and educate students of all ages. We're passionate about, and are proud to partner with, a broad spectrum of dynamic organizations, working together to build a better community.

What it reported doing in 2016

Small nonprofit transformation initiative: the small nonprofit transformation initiative (snti) upgrades the technology infrastructure of organizations with budgets of $1m or less east of the river in Washington dc. We help up to 6 organizations per year create a more cost-effective and sustainable technology infrastructure by conducting a strategic assessment of their technology needs, implementing key recommendations, and providing one year of it support at a subsidized monthly fixed rate.technology intervention: our e*trade-funded technology intervention for community change program provides technology assessments and rehabilitation upgrades for up to 10 affordable housing, homelessness, and community services nonprofits across dc, Maryland and Virginia.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 65% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 13
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 73.7%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.6 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -6%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.9%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -20.6% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -10.9% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -27.7% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 78% of revenue deployed · 73.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $772K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $69K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2011 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 32/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.