Illinois Society for the Prevention of Blindness

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
362167746
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
3123636029
Rating
91
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$385,299
Expenses
$426,921
Assets
$5,735,689
Liabilities
$14,704

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

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Mary Elizabeth White (President)
  • Kara Crumbliss (Vice President)
  • Charles Bouchard (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Mary Elizabeth White (President)
  • Kara Crumbliss (Vice President)
  • Charles Bouchard (Vice President)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Ispb aims to reduce preventable causes of blindness by educating the public on the necessity for and the methods of preventing blindness by attending health fairs and presentations in the community, ensuring access to eye care, funding research, and providing low vision equipment to those who cannot afford it.

What it reported doing in 2025

Public health education - informing the public (especially in low income and under insured areas) about the basic facts of eye care, health and safety through grass roots efforts including health fairs and presentations. We also assist in finding access to quality eye care and service for those who are not insured. Providing seed grants to young, up and coming researchers at accredited universities in Illinois. Ispb provides funds to encourage medical students, residents, graduate students, and fellows to find cures and causes of eye disease.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 64% for direct work, and 36% for grants.

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: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 90.2%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.58 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -10.8%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 13.44; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 90.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 26 of 26 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $385K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 26 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $235K reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 47/100.