Alliance to End Homelessness in Suburban Cook County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201880398
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Hillside, IL, USA
Phone
7082363261
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Management & Technical Assistance

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,430,422
Expenses
$5,375,609
Assets
$5,464,371
Liabilities
$859,503

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

Leadership & pay

48 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JENNIFER C HILL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JENNIFER C HILL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $205,153 total reported compensation
  • NUPUR ARORA (SR DIRECTOR OF FINANCE & OPERATIONS): $155,699 total reported compensation
  • CARRIE GEORGE (COORDINATED ENTRY DIRECTOR): $135,433 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the alliance to end homelessness is to strive for the elimination of homelessness in suburban cook county through the coordination and maximization of available resources to assist homeless individuals and families. The alliance serves as a convener for the collaborative, community-based endeavors of homeless service providers, affordable housing developers, local governments, foundations, and the private sector.

What it reported doing in 2025

Data collection - the homeless management information system (hmis) is a web-based computerized data collection system designed to capture client level information on the characteristics and service needs of people experiencing homelessness. This data informs the region about the number of persons experiencing homelessness, factors and patterns of housing instability, and the efficacy of the homeless response system. With this, the continuum of care (coc) can make data-driven decisions and develop strategies for preventing and ending homelessness.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 83% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 51% for direct work, and 49% for grants.

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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.2%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 85.7%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $25.79 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 1%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.02; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.9%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16.2% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.8% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 28.2% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.2% of revenue deployed · 85.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 35 of 35 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $205K · 48 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 26 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 16 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.