Friends of the Chicago River

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
363559764
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
3129390490
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies & Historic Preservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,530,514
Expenses
$2,508,550
Assets
$2,685,210
Liabilities
$1,088,592

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

Leadership & pay

29 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SALLY FLETCHER (PRESIDENT)
  • CY H GRIFFITH (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JAMES C MARK JR (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MARGARET FRISBIE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARGARET FRISBIE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $246,712 total reported compensation
  • JOHN QUAIL (DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND CONSERVATION): $128,558 total reported compensation
  • ADAM FLICKINGER (PLANNING DIRECTOR): $120,280 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To protect and restore the chicago-calumet river system for all people, water, and wildlife.

What it reported doing in 2024

Friends works through public policy and planning efforts that result in long term systemic river improvements and resiliency. They include a focus on water quality and habitat improvement, river-sensitive riverfront development, and establishing a continuous chicago river trail.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 98
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.1%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 78.8%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.18 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th 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: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • 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: 96.3%; rating input score 96; 26th 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: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.9%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.07; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.41; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.8%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.1% of revenue deployed · 78.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 26 of 27 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $247K · 29 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.