Girls Inc of Chicago

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
814491475
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
3124167799
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Adult, Child Matching Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,479,870
Expenses
$2,478,828
Assets
$1,428,586
Liabilities
$498,550

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

Leadership & pay

29 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • IYANA MASON (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • IYANA MASON (CEO): $177,538 total reported compensation
  • ARACELI CABRALES-MEDINA (CFO): $126,158 total reported compensation
  • LONA SLAUGHTER (DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT): $124,575 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Girls inc of chicago provides programming for girls grades k-12 throughout the chicagoland area to inspire them to be strong, smart and bold. As developed by longstanding tax-exempt organization girls incorporated, our comprehensive approach to whole girl development equips girls to navigate gender, economic, and social barriers and grow up healthy, educated, and independent.

What it reported doing in 2024

Girls inc. Of chicago's 2025 year was outstanding! We served 1,000 girls with an average of 30 hours of girls inc. Identity programming in accordance with national standards.the time with them was filled with deliberate and consistent execution of instruction, project-based learning activities and exposure experiences. The girls' experience was inclusive of during-school programs, afterschool programs, and a 8-week, full-day strong, smart and bold summer camp. Our end of year survey results show that our work is making a difference: - strong (healthy): 88% of girls inc. Of chicago girls are happy with the way their body looks.- smart (educated): 95% of girls inc. Of chicago girls care about doing well in school.- bold (independent): 87% are proud of themselves. 80% believe they are leaders.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
  • 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: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 77.1%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.22 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • 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%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.58; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.35; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.3%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 21.5% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.8% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.4% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77% of revenue deployed · 77.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 26 of 26 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $178K · 29 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.
  • 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 27/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.