The Chicago Club Preservation Foundation

How comparable organizations were selected

• SectorOrganizations sharing the subject's NTEE classification (A80).
• BudgetTotal revenue between $94,814 and $212,271 — 0.67× to 1.50× the subject's $141,514 (the band tightens as size grows).
• GeographySame NTEE sector (A80), nationwide + budget 0.67–1.5× revenue.

Distribution of comparable compensation

Comparable organizations

Each figure is Form 990 Part VII columns D + F (reportable pay plus other compensation and benefits; column F may include amounts from related organizations), normalized to IL cost of living (BEA RPP, 2023) and to its filing year (CPI-U); the reported amount is on each linked 990.

Comp (reported) is the figure on each organization's Form 990 (columns D + F); Comp (adjusted) normalizes it to IL cost of living and 2024 dollars. Click any organization to verify the figure on ProPublica.

Methodology

Comparable organizations were drawn from electronically filed IRS Form 990 returns and matched on sector (NTEE code), budget (a size-adaptive revenue band that tightens as the organization grows), and geography (same-state first, broadening only when too few peers qualify); every organization within the band forms the peer set. To compare fairly across regions and years, peer compensation is normalized to IL cost of living (BEA Regional Price Parities, 2023) and to the subject's filing year (CPI-U). The figure benchmarked is Form 990 Part VII, Section A, columns D + F — reportable pay plus other compensation, benefits, and deferred amounts (column F may include amounts from related organizations) — with the chief executive matched by role. Related-organization amounts (column E) and institutional trustees are excluded. Full methodology: peerbasis.org/methodology.

Sample, role match & sensitivity

• Peer count64 organizations. Compensation range $2,808–$257,122; filing years 2023–2025.
• Size basisMatched on total revenue ($141,514); for reference, expenses $580,925 and assets $2,462,772. Revenue and expenses diverge this year — revenue may misrepresent operating size; weigh the expense-based view.
• Role matchDaniel Moriyama, reported title "MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVE", benchmarked as Executive Director / CEO. Selected as the organization's highest-paid individual without an exact title match — the board should confirm this is a comparable role.
• Related-org pay3 peers report related-organization compensation (column E), which the D + F benchmark does not fully capture; review where material.
• Outliers1 peer fall outside 1.5× the interquartile range — consider whether any reflect one-time payments (severance, deferred-comp payouts).

Sensitivity — the subject's percentile under alternative compensation definitions:

If the percentile moves materially across these definitions, the result is sensitive to methodology choices, and the board should weigh which basis best fits its facts.

Rebuttable presumption of reasonableness · 26 CFR 53.4958-6

Compensation paid by a tax-exempt organization is presumed reasonable — shifting the burden to the IRS — when three requirements are met. This report supplies the comparability data for the second. The board should record the following in its minutes concurrently with its decision:

Sources: IRS Form 990 e-file data (apps.irs.gov); IRS Business Master File (NTEE classification). Every figure traces to an original public filing — click any organization above to verify it on ProPublica. PeerBasis is a service of Prismind Analytics; its methodology is published, was commissioned for independent adversarial review, and discloses its own limitations. This report is comparability data to support a board's good-faith determination under IRC 4958; it is not legal or tax advice. Generated by PeerBasis on June 9, 2026.