Hi-tech Charities

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943397413
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Saint Louis, MO, USA
Phone
3143895737
Rating
87
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Adult, Continuing Education

Reported finances

Revenue
$641,498
Expenses
$1,500,483
Assets
$2,645,378
Liabilities
$73,680

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Justice (Board President)
  • Francis (company president)
  • Barbara (Vice President of Operations)
  • Chidimma (Vice President of Programs)

Highest reported compensation

  • Francis (company president): $130,500 total reported compensation
  • Barbara (Vice President of Operations): $39,999 total reported compensation
  • Chidimma (Vice President of Programs): $33,992 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Hi-Tech Charities empowers low income and at risk individual families in the community through quality healthcare education economic development. In 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic Hi-Tech Charities continued its mission.

What it reported doing in 2024

Hi-Tech Charities delivers Mental Behavioral Health Substance Use Disorder SUD Recovery Support Services and integrated primary care services to youth children adults and family well-being. Help victims of abuse and strengthen individuals and families by providing recovery support services for adults suffering from mental illness and addictions. These programs are offered in diverse locations. The organization served over 400 consumers including both adults and children under un-insured health of projected project performance outcome. In counting all clients served and just the ones receiving services provided and counted under toward the goal HTCs total number of all clients served was 475. The company use the mobile van to assist individuals in the communities both city counties and rural offering MAT Behavioral Health and Primary Care services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 79% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 97
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 83
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 97.1%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: $51.9 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -133.9%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.76; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.6%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24.2% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 97.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $130K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 36 of 43 current checks pass · 7 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesManagement column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherEmployeeBenefits column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherSalariesAndWages column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PayrollTaxes column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PensionPlanContributions column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.