Vital Cxns Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
301255787
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2021
Location
Boston, MA, USA
Phone
4135308031
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,097,784
Expenses
$1,050,122
Assets
$895,200
Liabilities
$25,194

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ARIEL CHILDS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ARIEL CHILDS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $173,497 total reported compensation
  • MARIANA COHEN (CO-FOUNDER & DEPUTY DIRECTOR): $135,731 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We partner with communities to co-create a more accessible, effective, and equitable health ecosystem through convening cross-sector stakeholders, leveraging critical resources, and investing in data-driven, locally-sustained community health infrastructure.

What it reported doing in 2025

Vital cxns is dedicated to transforming the inequitable systems that continue to drive health inequities in boston, particularly within black, indigenous, people of color and low-income communities. Our work spans a range of community-identified priorities including food access, community-based care, mental wellness, and maternal health. Our approach is rooted in our nationally recognized community-led systems change model, which combines community stewardship with systems change strategies to address root causes while building lasting community capacity for transformative impact.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, and 23% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 92
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59.6%; rating input score 60
  • Program expense ratio: 62.3%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.88 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 30.2%; rating input score 30; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.3%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.85; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 29.4%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 45.3% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 33.7% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 34.6% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59.6% of revenue deployed · 62.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $654K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $173K · 8 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 30/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.