IREM Indianapolis

Legal name: Irem Indianapolis Chapter 24 Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471691592
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Indianapolis, IN, USA
Phone
317-815-0163
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$337,866
Expenses
$308,122
Assets
$404,895
Liabilities
$112,291

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CASEY RUSK (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • NICOLE BLANTON (IREM ASSOC E): $75,938 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Indianapolis Chapter will encourage the advancement of credentialing and educational opportunities, while creating a meaningful membership experience with a focus on ethics, community outreach and professional excellence.

What it reported doing in 2025

Iremindianapolischapter24sponsorstwocommunitycaringeventsdesigned tofostermemberparticipation, leadershiptraining, and camaraderiewhilegivingbacktocentralindiana.herosforthehouseisa 5krun.walk.bikeeventbenefitingtheronaldmcdonaldhouse ofindiana.itisatotalneteventwithallproceedsgoingtotheronaldm cdonaldhouseofindiana.weareinour11thyearofsponsoring therunwithallmembervolunteersasthecommittee.iremindianapolischap ter24hascontributedover114,000tormhwiththehelpof sponsorsandparticipantsintheevent.racedayincludesover75membervo lunteerstoassistinthesmoothoperationandrunningofan eventthatboastsover600participants.theiremindianapolischapter24g olfoutingisinits21styearandbenefitsiremindyandthe children'sdyslexiclearningcenterofindiana.wehavepairedwiththisor ganizationsincetheouting'sinceptionandcontinuetosupport thelearningcenterwithadonationeveryyear.wehavecontributedover10 0,000tothisorganizationthathelpstutorkidsandteach instructorsforstudentsbattlingdyslexia.

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 80% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 66.8%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 72.4%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 86.3%; rating input score 86; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.8%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.31; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.28; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.6%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 66.8% of revenue deployed · 72.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 320 of 5 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $76K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 23 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Independent members within voting members did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.