Black Boys Code USA Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
861210929
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
6047651502
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Reported finances

Revenue
$289,027
Expenses
$182,208
Assets
$296,435
Liabilities
$14,848

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dr Charlotte Haynes (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Bryan Johnson (Treasurer)
  • Owen Gilbert (Chairman)
  • Dr Charlotte Haynes (Vice President)

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

Improving the future of Black youth through education in computer science and technology.

What it reported doing in 2024

During the reporting period, Black Boys Code USA delivered a series of Technology Exposure Workshops in Atlanta, Georgia and Los Angeles, California, providing hands-on STEM education to Black youth aged 817. Across the reporting period, at least 9 structured workshops were delivered, engaging over 200 youth participants. Programming focused on coding, Python development, algorithms, robotics, web development, and introductory artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning concepts. Workshops included topics such as: Machine learning fundamentals and AI applications Python programming and application development Algorithm design and problem-solving Web development and interactive design Game development and creative coding Participants completed hands-on projects including building calculators, designing interactive web pages, developing simple machine learning models, and creating digital applications. Measured outcomes across workshops indicate: 95% of participants reported increased interest in working with computers 95% reported high satisfaction with program delivery 80% indicated intent to apply skills toward future education in STEM fields In addition to direct service delivery, Black Boys Code strengthened its U.S. program infrastructure by: Establishing and expanding partnerships with institutions such as Atlanta Metropolitan State College, Morehouse College, and Best Buy Teen Tech Centers Engaging industry professionals and guest speakers to provide mentorship and career exposure Expanding program capacity in Atlanta through the development of additional chapters (Gwinnett and DeKalb) in response to high demand Advancing the launch of a new Chicago chapter through leadership recruitment, community outreach, and partnership development These efforts contributed to increased access to STEM education, improved digital literacy, and strengthened pathways for Black youth to pursue careers in technology.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.8%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 82.1%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 37%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.63; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 47.3% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 58.3% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51.8% of revenue deployed · 82.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $150K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.