Cunningham Children's Home

Legal name: Cunningham Childrens Home of Urbana Il

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
370662521
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Urbana, IL, USA
Phone
2173673728
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$33,405,806
Expenses
$33,301,544
Assets
$59,117,793
Liabilities
$10,632,901

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

38 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHARON BROWN (PRESIDENT)
  • VICKI HARBER (PRESIDENT ELECT)
  • MARLIN LIVINGSTON (PRESIDENT/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARLIN LIVINGSTON (PRESIDENT/CEO): $258,154 total reported compensation
  • PAT EGE (VP OF PROGRAM SERVICES): $167,298 total reported compensation
  • LINDA FOX THRU 52424 (DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION): $157,863 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Cunningham Children’s Home serves more than 953 youth and families each year through residential treatment, special education and community-based services—providing therapeutic support, stability and opportunities for brighter futures. A Donor Bill of Rights Philanthropy is based on voluntary action for the common good. It is a tradition of giving and sharing that is primary to the quality of life. To assure that philanthropy merits the respect and trust of the general public, and that donors and prospective donors can have full confidence in the not-for-profit organizations and causes they are asked to support, we declare that all donors have these rights: To be informed of the organization’s mission, of the way the organization intends to use donated resources, and of its capacity to use donations effectively for their intended purposes.

What it reported doing in 2024

The home operates the following programs that are primarily funded through contracts with the state of Illinois: qualified residential treatment program (qrtp): the qrtp is a residential treatment program which provides assessment and treatment services for youth, ages 9 to 18, during their residential stay at home's main campus. Averages of 23.28 (unaudited) youth were served in this program in fiscal year 2025.cedars youth shelter: the cedars youth shelter is a diagnostic and adolescent care shelter located on the home's main campus. The shelter serves youth, ages 12-16 years old who are youth in care with the Illinois department of children and family services (dcfs). The shelter serves youth who are experiencing sudden displacement from their homes due to abuse, neglect or some other unsafe living situation. The program also works to ensure services are in place to provide continuity of care upon discharge from the shelter. The program served an average of 9.83 (unaudited) youth in fiscal year 2025.community group home: the community group home program provides assessment and treatment services for up to 8 girls and 8 boys, ages 15 to 19, who reside in two separate group homes, one located in the community, and one located on the main campus. Averages of 14.76 (unaudited) youth were served in this program in fiscal year 2025.transitional living program: the transitional living program provides treatment services for up to 14 adolescents between the ages of 18 and 20 living in the transitional living houses, and who are continuing their education and/or working. Averages of 10.18 (unaudited) youth were served in this program in fiscal year 2025.independent living opportunities (ilo) program: the ilo program provides treatment services for between 20 to 25 youth between the ages of 18 and 21 who are living in the community, continuing their education, and/or working while maintaining their own apartments. This portion of the ilo program provides independent living skills development with an emphasis on responsible parenting. Averages of 18.15 (unaudited) youth were served in this program in fiscal year 2025.pregnant and parenting teens (ppt) program: the ppt program serves youth throughout nine counties and provides support to enable youth to become responsible parents. 7 (unaudited) youth were served in this program throughout fiscal year 2025. This program was discontinued as of december 31, 2025.intensive placement stabilization (ips) program: the ips program provides a mix of formal and informal supports to families to promote family reunification, stabilize foster care placements, facilitate youth development, and ensure the safety, permanency, and well-being of children. Services can include therapy, respite, family support, crisis intervention, and tutoring. 69 (unaudited) youth were served in this program throughout fiscal year 2025.runaway homeless youth (rhy) program: the rhy program provides emergency shelter and transitional living for youth ages 17 to 24. Youth in transitional living may have up to a maximum stay of 24 months if they are homeless in champaign county and are not wards of the state of Illinois. Services for these youth are provided by bachelor's level professionals. 69 (unaudited) youth were served in fiscal year 2025.03 education: under the orphanage act, section 14.703 of the school code, the gerber on-grounds school provides for the special education needs for a portion of the children residing in the home's programs from first grade through senior year of high school. An average of 31.67 (unaudited) residential "03" students were served in fiscal year 2025.02 education: the gerber on-grounds school provides for the special education needs for a number of the children residing in the home's programs whose school district is responsible for funding the child's special education needs. The program is regulated by section 14.702 of the school code. Grades served are first grade through senior year

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 70% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.9%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 85.7%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.08 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.3%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.78; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.5%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 9 programs and campaigns described on the official site
  • Where the money goes: 85.9% of revenue deployed · 85.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 31 of 31 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $28.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $258K · 38 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $161K reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • 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 38/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.