Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Company

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
900962741
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
3128369500
Rating
29
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Insurance Providers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$630,130
Expenses
$255,426
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • KEVIN BALDWIN (DIRECTOR OF RECEIVERSHIP OPERATIONS): $1,871 total reported compensation
  • JACOB STUCKEY (SPECIAL DEPUTY RECEIVER): $398 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL COSENTINO (CHIEF REINSURANCE AND TECHNOLOGY OFFICER): $76 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the co-op was to provide its members high quality healthcare. Due to financial difficulties, the co-op was placed in liquidation by order of the circuit court of cook county, Illinois on october 1, 2016.

What it reported doing in 2024

Pursuant to the order of liquidation, the process of winding up the affairs of land of lincoln mutual health insurance company was completed in 2024. The liquidator's petition for entry of an order: (1) approving the allowance of two uncontested claims at 215 ilcs 5/205(1)(h) of the Illinois insurance code, (2) authorizing the issuance of a first and final dividend on claims allowed at 215 ilcs 5/205(1)(h) of the Illinois insurance code at the rate of 8.4437%, and (3) terminating the liquidation proceedings was granted by the circuit court of cook county, Illinois and a final distribution of assets to creditors was made.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: Limited
  • Governance controls: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 59.5%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: Limited

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -37.4% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -36.2% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $2K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 10 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.