Community Health Charities of Illinois

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
363243189
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Alexandria, VA, USA
Phone
7035281007
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Federated Giving Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$709,161
Expenses
$786,100
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID SELZER (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAVID SELZER (PRESIDENT & CEO): $165,822 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Community health charities of Illinois is part of a national federation of premier health organizations that have joined together to promote wellness in the workplace. As the affiliate in Illinois, we raise charitable contributions for our member health organizations.

What it reported doing in 2014

Program services of community health charities of Illinois include: development: chc cultivates and manages workplace employee giving programs for the purpose of raising, collecting and distributing contributions to non-profit member agencies to support their missions and operations.agency relations: chc provides information services to, and promotes collaboration among member agencies to ensure their continued well-being, participation and membership. Chc staff invested increased time and resources to educating our member charities about leveraging campaign opportunities and working together to develop additional workplaces.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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.

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: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 7
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 96%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 86.6%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.58 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 15th 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 75.9%; rating input score 76; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -10.8%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.1%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -52% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -11.2% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -23.5% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 96% of revenue deployed · 86.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $681K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $166K · 13 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2009 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 23 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 22 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.

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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 43/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.