American Comparative Literature Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203083618
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2025
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
3123799026
Rating
57
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Humanities Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$304,227
Expenses
$270,611
Assets
$632,088
Liabilities
$128,925

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Karyn Ball from 525 (President)
  • Karen Emmerich from 525 (Past President)
  • Karen Emmerich to 525 (President)
  • Karyn Ball to 525 (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Danielle Marie (Exec Dir & CAO): $91,240 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 American Comparative Literature Association, founded in 1960, is the principal learned society in the United States for scholars whose work involves several literatures and cultures, as well as the premises of cross-cultural literary study itself.

What it reported doing in 2025

In its largest sense, comparative literature promotes the study of intercultural relations that cross national boundaries, multicultural relations within a particular society, and the interactions between literature and other forms of human activity, including the Arts, the Sciences, Philosophy, and cultural artifacts of all kinds.The members of the ACLA are joined not by a national linguistic, or methodological investment held in common, but by the shared condition of teaching and writing across nations, languages, and cultures - and hence by their lively interest in comparison as both theoretical and practical matters.The ACLA is affiliated with the Association of Departments and Programs of Comparative Literature, the International Comparative Literature Association, and the National Humanities Alliance.To promote the ideals of the ACLA, its 2025 annual meeting, attended by more than 2,000 members, was held virtually from May 29th through June 1st. Conference fees were heavily discounted for all attendees. The conference included over 490 seminars and three guest speakers. The event required significant volunteer time from the conference organizers and presenters. Conference expenses were $9,140, not including a virtual event platform that was capitalized in 2025 $19,790 that can be used for future virtual events.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 94% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 82% 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 28
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 28.5%; rating input score 29
  • Program expense ratio: 33.8%; rating input score 34
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0.18 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.34; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 33.7%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.9% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 28.5% of revenue deployed · 33.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $91K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $91K · 22 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 29/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 34/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.