Choices Youth Development Organization

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
813418608
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Matteson, IL, USA
Rating
89
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,000
Expenses
$3,000
Assets
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Charles Johnson (President)
  • Gwendolyn Johnson (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Charles Johnson (President)
  • Gwendolyn Johnson (Vice President)
  • Carolyn Lacy (Secretary)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Provide mentoring tutoring counseling recreation college and career information and tours for at risk and challenged minority male students grades 6 - 12

What it reported doing in 2025

The program is currently volunteer based. Volunteers work with schools libraries and community organizations that have had a positive impact on the growth and development of multiple at risk minority males. Improved behavior academics school attendance and attitude. Developed partnerships to address mentees with mental health needs

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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 100
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 94.6% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 65.1% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.1% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $3K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.