Realtors Land Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
363829465
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
8004415263
Rating
48
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,886,960
Expenses
$1,847,358
Assets
$3,977,929
Liabilities
$949,103

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAN MURPHY (PRESIDENT)
  • GEOFF HURDLE (PRESIDENT-EL)
  • AUBRIE KOBERNUS (CEO, NON-VOT)

Highest reported compensation

  • AUBRIE KOBERNUS (CEO, NON-VOT): $313,228 total reported compensation
  • PHIL MCGINNIS (GOVT AFFAIRS): $16,500 total reported compensation
  • JENNIFER JANET (CHAP.LEADERS): $5,900 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 realtors land institute is dedicated to building knowledge, building relationships, and building business for its members. It is a membership organization created for and by land sales experts, and offers programs and services designed to provide superior land education and professional development programs, develop networking and referral opportunities and serve as a voice in Washington on land-related issues.

What it reported doing in 2025

The realtors land institute is dedicated to continual enhancement of its educational initiatives including its land university curriculum and national land conference, all of which fall under the organization's "landu" banner. The organization delivers professional education through an 11-course core curriculum, on topics such as land 101, land investment analysis, and tax implications for real estate. These educational initiatives are designed to provide best in class professional education for land specialists. In 2025, no major changes were made to curriculum.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 95% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 40th 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: 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: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.1%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.15; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.5%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.8% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $313K · 17 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $110K reported
  • Consistency: 11 of 13 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.