Chicago Housing Consulting Services Inc NFP

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
273022514
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2017, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
3127863482
Rating
35
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$450,578
Expenses
$1,139,865
Assets
$2,312,198
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARY HOWARD (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARY HOWARD (President): $314,520 total reported compensation
  • EBONY CAMPBELL (Director): $223,237 total reported compensation
  • RISHAB MEHAN (Secretary): $215,487 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Promote Civic Betterment and Social Improvement for low income Chicago residents through impactful programs and community development activities.

What it reported doing in 2025

Provided stipends for summer interns. Many students entering their senior year of college lost the opportunity to learn and grow through traditional internships, and many recent graduates are struggling to find any job, let alone jobs in their field of choice. Additionally, there is an opportunity divide for exposure and entry into the finance and investment industry. This program filled a gap in providing students and graduates with critical skill building activities and experience to add to their resumes, and aiding their efforts to obtain employment.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. 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: 5
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 28
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 7.2%; rating input score 7
  • Program expense ratio: 2.9%; rating input score 3
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -153%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.03; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.5%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -13.9% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.7% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 7.2% of revenue deployed · 2.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $32K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $315K · 5 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 11 of 11 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 7/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.