Chicago Area Track and Field Organizing Committee
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 453277908
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2015–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2023
- Location
- Naperville, IL, USA
- Phone
- 6305369348
- Rating
- 85
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Amateur Sports Competitions
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $81,279
- Expenses
- $58,251
- Assets
- $80,189
- Liabilities
- $11,804
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
2 people listed
People named in this filing
- Alan Edgecombe (Chairman)
- Jeffrey Couch (Secretary/Treasurer)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Maintain and operate a public cross country course used for high school, middle school and collegiate cross country meets.
What it reported doing in 2025
Thirteen cross country meets were held on the Course between late August and early November - four middle school meets, six high school meets, two college meets, and one meet with both high school and middle school divisions. One community run was held in March and another was held in November. 5,000+ athletes participated in the meets, and approximately 6,000 spectators attended the meets during the fall cross country season. The Course is open to the public and used by walkers and joggers throughout the year.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 90% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 88
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 62
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 79.5%; rating input score 80
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 28.3%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.38; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 14.4% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 12.9% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 15.1% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 79.5% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $65K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2015 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.