Cosmopolitan Club of the University of Illinois

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
371139493
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2010
Forms available
Form 990 2010
Location
Champaign, IL, USA
Phone
2173673079
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Promotion of International Understanding

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$295,920
Expenses
$389,894
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2010. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2010. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To cultivate social and intellectual relationships among persons of different nations through a variety of activities and services

What it reported doing in 2010

Housing program: a residential facility is provided for students attending u of i. The program permits the intercultural exchange for students. Foreign and us students reside in a 12 room facility. Costs are utilities, insurance, maintenance, repairs and other facility expenses

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 65% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 9
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -31.8%; rating input score 9; 9th 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: 8.8%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $382K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $34K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.