Community Associations Institute of Illinois

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
363445388
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Schaumburg, IL, USA
Phone
8473017505
Rating
46
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,497,581
Expenses
$1,399,175
Assets
$1,364,506
Liabilities
$746,926

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KATHRYN KAHL (Past-President)
  • CARRIE SURRATT (President)
  • BRITTANY KOJZAREK (Vice President)
  • RANDY GRIMES (President-Elect)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHERYL MURPHY (Executive Dir.): $190,947 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 cai-il is to provide education, legislative advocacy and professional service resources to achieve excellence in community associations.

What it reported doing in 2025

Education: the chapter offers a variety of educational programs throughout the year for property managers, homeowners and for mixed audiences of property managers and homeowners. The chapter also offers webinar education programs. Chapter educational program offerings include the dedicated community association leader(dcal) program, the legal forum and cmca review programs.the dcal program was created to recognize community association volunteer leaders for their commitment to education and promotion of positive living within the common interest communities in which they serve. Dcal courses educate community association volunteers in the daily operations and issues they must face within an association as well as federal, state and local legislation.the legal forum is an annual education event specifically dedicated to legal topics and legal issues related to community association living. The education sessions are taught by participating attorneys who also have the opportunity to take part in two panel discussions and a q&a session. The cmca review is a test review course for property managers preparing to take the cmca test. Property managers must pass the cmca test in order to earn the certified manager of community associations designation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 78% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.6%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.98; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.55; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.6%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $191K · 12 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.