Preservation Chicago
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 010674228
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2018–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2017
- Location
- Chicago, IL, US
- Phone
- 312-443-1000
- Rating
- 72
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Alliance/Advocacy Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,830,249
- Expenses
- $636,100
- Assets
- $2,623,718
- Liabilities
- $7,031
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- BRAD SUSTER (PRESIDENT)
- JACOB KAPLAN (VICE PRESIDENT)
- WARD MILLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- WARD MILLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $122,357 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Preservation Chicago is committed to strengthening the vibrancy of Chicago’s economy and quality of life by championing our historic built environment. Preservation Chicago protects and revitalizes Chicago’s irreplaceable architecture, neighborhoods and urban green spaces. We influence stakeholders toward creative reuse and preservation through advocacy, outreach, education, and partnership.
What it reported doing in 2024
2024 proved to be remarkable. Many long-endangered buildings finally emerged as preservation 'wins' through landmarking. Preservation chicago has been deeply engaged with many of these long-term efforts and our leadership and involvement with these advocacy efforts proved decisive. After so many years of effort, to finally see these buildings in a safe place is both wonderfully exhilarating and provides as profound sense of relief. A few highlights include: century & the consumers building, thompson center, st. Adalbert parish complex, rector building, wax trax! Records, 161 e. Erie, harris trust & savings bank, kingdom baptist church, hyde park union church, werner brothers storage, ramova theater, marshall square theater, congress theater. Mars chocolate factory, crittenton anchorage, stock yards bank, humboldt park receptory building and stable, ludlow typograph company, and many more.our innovative leveraged impact advocacy model uses amplification and protection to catalyze the targeted strategic investment essential to allow our communities to begin to heal. This dynamic advocacy model has successfully harnessed the power of historic preservation and catalyzed hundreds of millions of dollars of public and private investment, primarily in communities of disinvestment. Everything we do is pro bono.by mobilizing widespread goodwill through extensive media coverage, and deploying robust landmark protections against demolition, we create the stability necessary to secure the public, private and philanthropic funding essential for converting long-neglected historic assets into dynamic neighborhood anchors.step 1 - amplification: we informally partner with the press. In 2024, there were 428 news stories about the historic buildings we advocated for and we were quoted or mentioned in 223 of these stories.step 2 - protection: in 2024, we testified over 106 times at city hall meetings to help generate 11 new chicago landmarks, to support adopt-a-landmark awards, and to support class l designations.step 3 - investment: without grantmaking capacity ourselves, we harness massive municipal and private investment. In 2024, chicago announced an $2.4m investment through adopt-a-landmark funds. We were directly involved with all 3 of the sites selected.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 95% 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. 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: 45
- Transparency & Controls: 86
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 79
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 27.7%; rating input score 28
- Program expense ratio: 69.3%; rating input score 69
- Fundraising efficiency: $21.1 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th 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: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 65.2%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.12; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 19.2%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 14.1% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 29.3% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 35.5% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 8 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 27.7% of revenue deployed · 69.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $441K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $122K · 12 people listed
- Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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: Mission deployment rate scored 28/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.