Appraisal Institute Relieffoundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 203950855
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2013–2013
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2013, Form 990-N 2011
- Location
- Chicago, IL, USA
- Phone
- 3123354154
- Rating
- 37
- Verdict
- REVIEW
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Public Safety, Disaster Preparedness & Relief N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $33,249
- Expenses
- $21,968
- Assets
- $332,065
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- John Y Fiser (President)
- Robin D Czarnecki Griffin (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- John Y Fiser (President)
- Robin D Czarnecki Griffin (Vice President)
- Thomas A Stark (Director)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Appraisal Institute Relief Foundation was incorporated in December 2005 as a charitable not-for-profit organization. The general purposes of the Foundation are: "To provide emergency financial assistance (i) to Designated Members, Candidates for Designation, Practicing Affiliates, Affiliates, employees (and dependents of AI individuals and employees), of the Appraisal Institute, a nonprofit organization, and (ii) to individuals who have made meaningful contributions to the real estate profession, who have experienced a disaster or emergency that has left the recipient in a state of financial, physical or emotional distress." Contributions are welcome at any time from AI individuals as well as anyone with a desire to provide assistance.
What it reported doing in 2013
Direct cash assistance to three eligible recipients in accordance with the Foundation's exempt pupose
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 84
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 33.9%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 15.12; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.