The Chicago Bar Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
366109584
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
3125541205
Rating
87
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$15,447,025
Expenses
$12,409,031
Assets
$10,135,132
Liabilities
$4,561,880

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

Leadership & pay

36 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SANG-YUL LEE (PRESIDENT)
  • THOMAS V PANOFF (1ST VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ELIZABETH P LEWIS (2ND VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ROBERT GLAVES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBERT GLAVES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $171,750 total reported compensation
  • MELANIE MACBRIDE (CHIEF GRANTS & OPERATIONS OFFICER): $144,119 total reported compensation
  • ROYA SAMARGHANDI (CHIEF ADVOCACY & INNOVATION OFC): $127,377 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The chicago bar foundation brings the legal community together through advocacy, funding, and innovation to improve access to justice for people in need and to make the legal system more fair, equitable, and effective.

What it reported doing in 2024

Made the court system more user-friendly and accessible for people in need, particularly those without lawyers. The cbf continued its role as a lead partner with the circuit court, cook county, legal aid, and others in the cook county legal aid for housing and debt program, which provides critical help for people facing evictions, consumer debt challenges, and foreclosures and helps tens of thousands of people annually. The cbf continued its leadership and support for advice desks in the state and federal courts and in the city's department of administrative hearings. The cbf also played a lead role in Illinois justicecorps, an innovative program through which students serve as guides to make courts across Illinois more welcoming for people without lawyers.

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 84% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 91
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.4%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 93.5%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: $50.95 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 19.7%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.82; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.45; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.6%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.5% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75.4% of revenue deployed · 93.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 33 of 33 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $11.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $172K · 36 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 55 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 53 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.