Center for Independence Through Conductive Education Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
364259162
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Countryside, IL, USA
Phone
7085880833
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Specialized Education Institutions

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,755,508
Expenses
$3,268,364
Assets
$2,871,916
Liabilities
$209,377

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Patricia Herbst (Executive Director/CFO)
  • Clayton Kalweit (President/Chair)
  • Josephine Boggs (Clinical Supervisor/Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Patricia Herbst (Executive Director/CFO): $147,842 total reported compensation
  • Josephine Boggs (Clinical Supervisor/Executive Director): $113,941 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To help children and young adults with disabilities achieve their highest level of indepedence in the home, school, comunity and workforce.

What it reported doing in 2025

Motor Training - Conductive Education Program: Helps children with physical disabilities, primarily cerebral palsy, develop life skills and motor function in a manner that promotes positive self-direction, self-esteem and an I Can! attitude. The therapy program is based on the principals of conductive education and delivered by the Centers talented staff of conductive education teachers, physical and occupational therapists.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 59% for direct work, and 41% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.2%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 90.8%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $17.91 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 25th 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: 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 8 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: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.88; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.2% of revenue deployed · 90.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $148K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 55/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.