Nami Cook County North Suburban

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
363714540
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2011
Location
Skokie, IL, USA
Phone
8477162252
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$407,135
Expenses
$398,277
Assets
$372,635
Liabilities
$29,996

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID RAY (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JEFFREY RABIN (EXECUTIVE DI): $60,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Education, support and advocacy re: serious mental illness

What it reported doing in 2024

Public outreach and education: nami staff and volunteers perform outreach through educational lectures, presentations and distribution of brochures and other materials to inform the public about mental illness and the services provided by nami ccns. These activities, sponsored by nami ccns but also at the invitation of other organizations, are primarily conducted in the seventeen townships of the nami ccns catchment area. During the year, 2,444 people attended our support groups, 469 individuals attended our education classes, and 491 people attended our in our own voice presentations. The nami ccns email list has 7,302 subscribers. Overall, there has been an increase of 22% in unique website visits in the last year. Public outreach and education efforts increase awareness of and participation in nami ccns programs, generate memberships, and foster financial donations to support the agency mission.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 61% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 63%; rating input score 63
  • Program expense ratio: 63.7%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.76 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 17; 17th 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: 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.2%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.94; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.1%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 63% of revenue deployed · 63.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $254K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $60K · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 17/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.