Indiana Economic Development Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
202664607
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Indianapolis, IN, USA
Phone
8004638081
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public, Societal Benefit

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$322,700
Expenses
$1,742,875
Assets
$2,165,320
Liabilities
$265,211

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

Leadership & pay

29 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • DAVID ROSEBERG (IEDC SECRETARY (END JAN 2025)): $356,988 total reported compensation
  • ROBERT PAGLIA (IEDC TREAS. (FEB 2025 - JUNE 2025)): $266,468 total reported compensation
  • HEIDI BABKOWSKI (IEDC TREAS. (END FEB 2025)): $224,987 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To promote industrial and business development, diversification of Indiana's economy, and overall economic growth of Indiana; to promote the retention, expansion, growth, and modernization of Indiana's businesses; to promote the creation of new jobs, retention of existing jobs, and the development of entrpreneurial activities in Indiana; and otherwise to assist the governor and the Indiana economic development corporation (iedc) in reaching their economic goals by raising funds from the general public and non-profit foundations and organizations.

What it reported doing in 2024

During the year, the organization advanced Indiana's economic growth through targeted business attraction and expansion initiatives. These efforts resulted in multiple announced investments across key sectors including advanced manufacturing, life sciences, logistics, aerospace, and defense. Major projects included manufacturing expansions, new service and distribution centers, headquarters relocations, and significant growth in research and production facilities. Collectively, these announcements represented thousands of new jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in private sector investment statewide, strengthening Indiana's competitive position.the organization worked with companies such as alera marine group, bombardier, harpercollins, hyster yale materials handling, incog biopharma, ware, kratos defense & security solutions, roche, and west pharmaceutical services to support new facility launches or major expansions across Indiana. These projects included large-scale manufacturing operations, advanced technology development centers, and expanded diagnostics and life science production facilities.overall project activity contributed to an expected 10,934 new jobs and $902 million in new payroll, with average hourly wages of $39.70, exceeding both state and national averages. Incentives offered per job decreased by 68% from the prior year, generating improved taxpayer value and resulting in an estimated $348 million in savings. These efforts promoted higher wages, industry diversification, and long term economic stability throughout the state.in addition, the organization advanced its global engagement strategy by supporting the planning and hosting of the global entrepreneurship congress (gec), the premier annual event of the global entrepreneurship network. The congress brings together ecosystem builders, founders, investors, and government partners from around the world for four days of collaboration and practical insights. The event is designed to unite thousands of participants in a shared effort to strengthen and build an inclusive global entrepreneurial ecosystem. By helping bring this gathering to Indiana, the organization showcased the state's innovation community and expanded international connections that support long term economic development.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 44
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 46.5%; rating input score 46
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 19th 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -440.1%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.24; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.8%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -37.9% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 46.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $810K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $357K · 29 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $144K reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.