Chicago Cubs Charities

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
363443543
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2025
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
7734042827
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,349,672
Expenses
$6,529,511
Assets
$15,438,275
Liabilities
$1,066,685

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CRANE H KENNEY (PRESIDENT)
  • LEA JESSE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • LEA JESSE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & VICE PRESIDENT): $299,687 total reported compensation
  • KERI BLACKWELL (DEPUTY DIRECTOR, STRATEGY AND PROGRAMS UNTIL NOVEMBER 2025): $208,721 total reported compensation
  • JENNIFER DEDES-NOWAK (ASSISTANT DIRECTOR): $173,806 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 cubs charities is to mobilize the power of sport to champion youth, families, and communities. Cubs charities achieves this through sports-based youth development and academic programming, investments in safe places to play, and strategic grantmaking. The vision of cubs charities is to be recognized locally and globally for its collective work to encourage the love of sport and contribute to a more unified and thriving chicago, where all youth, families, and communities have an equal opportunity to achieve their highest potential both on and off the field.

What it reported doing in 2025

Chicago cubs charities raises charitable support through banquets and athletic, music & other entertainment events, the 50/50 raffle, and proceeds from messages placed on the cubs video board. Funds supported cubs charities direct programming for under-served children and youth across chicago and towards grants for other charitable organizations in chicago and beyond.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 60% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 43% for direct work, and 57% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 80
  • Sustainability: 62
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.9%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 86.9%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.52 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 96.7%; rating input score 97; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 21.8%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.36; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.1%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.9% of revenue deployed · 86.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $300K · 14 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $737K reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 58 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 60 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 43/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 55/100.