Chicago International Film Festival Inc Cinema-Chicago

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
362545170
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
3126830121
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Film, Video

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,095,255
Expenses
$1,868,295
Assets
$3,033,088
Liabilities
$276,833

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • VIVIAN TENG (Executive Dir.): $91,827 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Cinema/Chicago, the non-profit 501(c)(3) presenting organization of the Chicago International Film Festival, enriches the community through year-round programming devoted to international and independent cinema. We strengthen communication and inspire empathy among people of diverse cultures through artistic, educational, and creative development programs that promote discovery and discussion and inspire new visions of our shared future.

What it reported doing in 2025

Festivals and Screenings - Includes the Chicago International Film Festival (held in October) which is North Americas longest-running competitive international film festival and seeks out the best in international and independent cinema, discovering new talents and opening windows to a world of film previously or otherwise unavailable in Chicago. Also includes Summer Screenings Program held June through August, Community Cinema held October-December, and Members Screenings, Chicago Industry Exchange programs held year-round, and CineYouth Festival that showcases short films by filmmakers ages 22 and younger from around the world, providing emerging talent with a platform to share their work, connect with fellow filmmakers, and learn from industry professionals.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 79.1%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.7 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.8%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.62; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.9%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.1% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.7% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71% of revenue deployed · 79.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $92K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 44/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue 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.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.