Hispanic It Executive Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205975604
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2011
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
2489520200
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,344,428
Expenses
$2,801,485
Assets
$2,389,291
Liabilities
$484,419

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • OMAR DUQUE (PRESIDENT)
  • SUSANA C RAMIREZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF HITEC)
  • KELLEY M FRANCIS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF HITEC FOUNDATION)

Highest reported compensation

  • OMAR DUQUE (PRESIDENT): $360,000 total reported compensation
  • SUSANA C RAMIREZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF HITEC): $201,235 total reported compensation
  • KELLEY M FRANCIS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF HITEC FOUNDATION): $164,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To promote hispanic it leadership in the technology industry. Hitec will provide these current and future leaders with a solid skill set through professional development and networking opportunities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Hitecs mission is to promote hispanic it leadership in the technology industry. Hitec will provide these current and future leaders with a solid skill set through professional development and networking opportunities. There also will be access to education and executive training.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 92
  • Sustainability: 19
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.4%; rating input score 51
  • Program expense ratio: 42.2%; rating input score 42
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.28 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 24th 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: Pass
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -19.5%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.85; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 25.9%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 22.7% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.7% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.9% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51.4% of revenue deployed · 42.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 16 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $360K · 18 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $102K reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 51/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 42/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule G fundraiser detail did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.