Morgan Park and Beverly Handicapped Inc C/o Embrace Living Communities

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
363515819
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Oak Brook, IL, USA
Phone
6305218021
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies & Historic Preservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$586,671
Expenses
$625,360
Assets
$533,291
Liabilities
$46,732

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RALPH GAINES (PRESIDENT & CEO (FORMER SEPT 25))
  • WAYNE FOLEY (CEO)
  • DAWN ZENKNER (VICE PRESIDENT OF FINANCE)

Highest reported compensation

  • RALPH GAINES (PRESIDENT & CEO (FORMER SEPT 25)): $403,762 total reported compensation
  • GARY ADAMS (DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS): $178,735 total reported compensation
  • JENNIFER TRUPPA (DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL SERVICE): $165,189 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To provide actively aging adults affordable, welcoming homes in communities that embrace living.

What it reported doing in 2025

Morgan park & beverly handicapped, inc was organized on may 12, 1987, as a nonprofit corporation, under the laws of the state of Illinois, for the purpose of constructing and operating a rental housing project for low-income elderly persons as defined by the national housing act of 1959. Such projects are regulated by u.s. Department of housing and urban development as to rent changes and operating methods. The corporation consists of 24 units located in chicago, Illinois.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 97% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 56
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 93.9%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 22nd 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: -6.6%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.85; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 34.7%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.4% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 93.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $587K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $404K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $181K reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2009 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 28 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 17/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.