Foundation for Human Development

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237177683
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
3125064824
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,853,066
Expenses
$1,080,242
Assets
$26,614,747
Liabilities
$3,947,149

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CARL LA MELL (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • CARL LA MELL (CEO): $54,000 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 foundation receives and maintains funds, of real or personal property, and to use and apply the whole of the income there from and the principal thereof, exclusively to promote the general welfare of persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities; to foster the development of programs in their behalf; to encourage research related to developmental disabilities; to advise and aid parents in the solution of their problems and to coordinate their efforts and activities; to develop a better understanding of the problems of intellectual and developmental disabilities by the public; to cooperate with public, private, and religious agencies and professional groups in the furtherance of these ends; to associate with and support financially the state and national associations; to promote the common cause; to serve locally as a clearinghouse for gathering and giving out information regarding the persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

What it reported doing in 2025

To promote the general welfare of persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities; to foster the development of programs in their behalf; to encourage research related to developmental disabilities; to advise and aid parents in the solution of their problems and to coordinate their efforts and activities; to develop a better understanding of the problems of intellectual and developmental disabilities by the public; to cooperate with public, private, and religious agencies and professional groups in the furtherance of these ends; to associate with and support financially the state and national associations; to promote the common cause; to serve locally as a clearinghouse for gathering and giving out information regarding the persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 98% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 79
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.1%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 54.3%; rating input score 54
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90%; rating input score 90; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 41.7%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 24.64; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.6% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.1% of revenue deployed · 54.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $587K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $54K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Whistleblower policy not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 50/100.