Chicago Association of REALTORS Educational Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
363746120
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
3128034900
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$225,691
Expenses
$273,250
Assets
$1,461,105
Liabilities
$36,789

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Lutalo McGee (President-Elect)
  • Michelle Mills Clement (TOP Mgmt Offical & CAR CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Michelle Mills Clement (TOP Mgmt Offical & CAR CEO): $544,935 total reported compensation
  • Robert Schmidt (Top Financial Official & CAR CFO): $254,950 total reported compensation
  • Lutalo McGee (President-Elect): $6,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

A 501(c)(3) charitable organization, we are the education, philanthropic, and research arm of the Chicago Association of REALTORS. The Foundation provides REALTORS with opportunities to enhance their business through education, fosters careers in real estate, and champions the professional image of the Chicago REALTOR.

What it reported doing in 2024

THE FOUNDATION PROVIDES SCHOLARSHIPS TO ASSIST REALTORS AND THEIR FAMILIES IN MEETING THEIR REAL ESTATE EDUCATIONAL GOALS. THESE FUNDS ARE INTENDED TO HELP QUALIFIED REALTORS AND STUDENTS PURSUE AN EDUCATION, DESIGNATION, OR CERTIFICATION THAT WILL LEAD THEM INTO PRODUCTIVE CAREERS IN THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY. THE FOUNDATION ALSO HOSTS VARIOUS INDUSTRY RECOGNITION EVENTS. In addition, the Foundation provides grants to organizations recognized by the IRS as 501(c)(3) organizations for philanthropic purposes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 76% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 75% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 84%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $25.39 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th 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: 92.1%; rating input score 92; 53rd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -21.1%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.35; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.3%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 84% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $229K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $545K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 10 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.