Institute of Real Estate Management 58 Rochester Western New York
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 510204284
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2013–2019
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2019
- Location
- North Chili, NY, USA
- Phone
- 5858898040
- Rating
- 72
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Real Estate Associations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $71,874
- Expenses
- $67,139
- Assets
- $57,247
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DAVID COCQUYT (PRESIDENT)
- ANDREW KINGSLEY (VICE PRESIDENT/MEMBERSHIP)
- NICHOLAS J HARRIS JR (VICE PRESIDENT/EDUCATION)
People named in this filing
- DAVID COCQUYT (PRESIDENT)
- BRENDA DECKER (MEMBER AT LARGE)
- ANDREW KINGSLEY (VICE PRESIDENT/MEMBERSHIP)
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 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To sponsor educational courses and meetings to discuss relevant issues and improve the skill of members in the real estate management profession.
What it reported doing in 2019
Business meetings: monthly meetings are held to discuss relevent issues to the membership and inform them of changes in the profession.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 72
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 54
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 70.4%; rating input score 70
- Program expense ratio: 75.3%; rating input score 75
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 6.6%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.85; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -3.8% per year; rating input score 0; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -7.5% per year; rating input score 0; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 70.4% of revenue deployed · 75.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $51K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
- Schedules: 1 filed schedules
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2013 to 2019
- 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.
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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.