Technical Assistance Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431553849
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
St Louis, MO, USA
Phone
3142319400
Rating
55
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Urban, Community Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,876,180
Expenses
$295,995
Assets
$12,636,051
Liabilities
$1,511,229

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • COLLEEN HAFNER (PRESIDENT)
  • MARK STROKER (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • COLLEEN HAFNER (PRESIDENT): $161,959 total reported compensation
  • MARK STROKER (VICE PRESIDENT): $144,404 total reported compensation
  • BRIAN HURD (TREASURER): $115,607 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Technical assistance corporation ("tac") works to redevelop and strengthen communities by providing housing development services, capacity-building and financing for the successful revitalization of neighborhoods in the st. Louis metropolitan area in cooperation with rise community development, a 501(c)(3) organization.

What it reported doing in 2024

Predevelopment and permanent financing: most nonprofit community development organizations do not have the ability to pay the costs necessary to get a development project to the point where conventional construction financing becomes available. To get redevelopment projects started in st. Louis' most distressed neighborhoods, technical assistance corporation ("tac") offers predevelopment loans to nonprofit neighborhood organizations, enabling them to start planning and building toward a vision of improved neighborhood vitality. These loans are offered at below-market interest rates and provide a "first-in" source of financing, accelerating the time from concept to construction and absorbing the risk that cannot be accepted by conventional lenders. Tac also receives tax credit generated charitable contributions that it uses to make subordinate loans and equity investments in affordable housing developments undertaken either by its own affiliates or unrelated third party affordable housing developers. Tac has provided over $35 million in loans for the development of over 3,500 affordable homes in the st. Louis areas.rise community development financial institution (cdfi) was launched in july 2020 to provide loans and services to small contractors, developers, and businesses that are underserved by traditional banks. Rise cdfi supports tac's existing work in some of the region's most disinvested communities where appraisal gaps prevent traditional lenders from doing business, and a lack of coordinated community-driven plans and investment strategies have perpetuated inefficient and insufficient development. The intention of the cdfi is to support economically productive activities within the local community in order to foster economic development, improve the financial well-being of the local community, and, in particular, the financial well-being of the investment area and the low-income people living and working in the local community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Affiliate-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
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 - 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 25
  • Transparency & Controls: 63
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 5.3%; rating input score 5
  • Program expense ratio: 33.4%; rating input score 33
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11,130.15 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 5th 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: 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: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 84.2%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 42.69; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 37.3%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24.3% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.4% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 5.3% of revenue deployed · 33.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $99K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $162K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: 35 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 5/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 33/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.