Sithub

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
810881153
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
3314424449
Rating
35
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$833,488
Expenses
$710,820
Assets
$124,833
Liabilities
$124,833

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • INDRIG LADDEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LINDSAY DOYLE (CLINICAL DIRECTOR): $152,782 total reported compensation
  • INDRIG LADDEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $128,954 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We are a transformative health justice organization dedicated to ending LGBTQIA2S mental health inequity. Our mission is to take decisive action to advocate LGBTQ+ mental health in Illinois through therapy, education, the arts and advocacy.

What it reported doing in 2024

During fiscal year 2025, Chicago Therapy Collective expanded LGBTQ affirming mental health care, education, and community programming across Chicago & Illinois. CTC delivered more than 2500 free, low fee, and insurance based therapy sessions and launched a Healing & Wellness program, providing 93 group yoga, meditation, and fitness sessions serving 490 participants. CTC also partnered with the Mayors Office to train 9 City of Chicago departments and launched a training initiative with the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and IDHSs Division of Rehabilitation Services. Through its arts programming, CTC produced five community exhibitions and performances honoring Elise Malary, engaging 725 attendees.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 62% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 - Program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 30
  • Transparency & Controls: 53
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 32.3%; rating input score 32
  • Program expense ratio: 37.8%; rating input score 38
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 1st 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 14.7%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 39.6%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 33% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 37.9% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 32.3% of revenue deployed · 37.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 0 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $269K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $153K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 13 of 15 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 32/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 38/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.