Indiana Tech
Legal name: Indiana Institute of Technology Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 350845258
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Fort Wayne, IN, USA
- Phone
- 260.422.5561
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- University or Technological Institute
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $144,228,618
- Expenses
- $125,056,129
- Assets
- $347,832,960
- Liabilities
- $53,188,607
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
30 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Karl W Einolf (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Karl W Einolf (President): $693,403 total reported compensation
- Judy K Roy (Treasurer): $322,463 total reported compensation
- Steve A Herendeen (VP Enrollment Management): $308,246 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 prepare students of all ages for active participation, career advancement, and leadership in the global 21st century society, and motivate them toward lives of significance and worth.
What it reported doing in 2024
At Indiana institute of technology, we excel at educating students from all walks of life, for all kinds of meaningful work. We're a truly inclusive community of learners, ensuring that students are supported, inspired, and empowered to maximize their professional prospects, advance in their careers, and improve their lives and the lives of others. We believe students learn best when they meaningfully engage with a real-world professor. With an alum. With a cause. With a team. With a peer. Simply put, our model is hands-on. Indiana tech offers degrees at the associate, bachelor's, master's and doctoral levels, in fields such as engineering, computer sciences, cybersecurity, business, analytics, criminal justice, biology, health sciences, and more. In all, the university offers more than 60 quality degree options.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 73% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 53% for direct work, and 47% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 72
- Transparency & Controls: 80
- Accountability: 94
- Sustainability: 73
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 72.7%; rating input score 73
- Program expense ratio: 79.2%; rating input score 79
- Fundraising efficiency: $10.79 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 90.5%; rating input score 90; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 13.3%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.78; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.4%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 72.7% of revenue deployed · 79.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 19 of 21 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $99.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $693K · 30 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $4.6M reported
- Consistency: 42 of 42 current checks pass
- Schedules: 12 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 14 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 4 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 43/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 48/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.