Lynn Sage Breast Cancer Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
363727715
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
3122522502
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,726,747
Expenses
$2,812,267
Assets
$8,923,856
Liabilities
$18,234

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

Leadership & pay

35 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kirstin Chernawsky (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kirstin Chernawsky (Executive Director): $256,250 total reported compensation
  • Emerson Wells (Director of Programs and Grants): $145,480 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 Lynn Sage Breast Cancer Foundation's mission is to eradicate breast cancer by investing in early career doctors and innovative research. Investments are directed locally within the Chicago area, but drive impact globally.

What it reported doing in 2025

The Lynn Sage Breast Cancer Foundation invests in medical research to help prevent and treat breast cancer, provide critically-needed medical training through grants to fellows, and promote collaboration across disciplines through the Lynn Sage Breast Center Symposium. The Chicago Breast Cancer Research Consortium is designed to make clinical trials more accessible for Chicago-area breast cancer patients at University of Chicago Medicine, Robert H Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center and RUSH MD Anderson Cancer Center.

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 81% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72.2%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 67.4%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.43 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th 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; 63rd 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: -3.1%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.17; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.3%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 72.2% of revenue deployed · 67.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 33 of 33 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $256K · 35 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 45 of 46 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.