Alabama Beta Chapter of Phi Delta Theta Fraternity

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911903532
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Auburn, AL, USA
Phone
5135236345
Rating
43
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$900,281
Expenses
$936,407
Assets
$128,907
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Cameron McRae (President (start Jan 25))
  • Blake Adams (President (end Dec 24))
  • Kase McElwee (Vice President (start Jan 25))
  • Michael Hawkins (Vice President (end Dec 24))

People named in this filing

  • Cameron McRae (President (start Jan 25))
  • Blake Adams (President (end Dec 24))
  • Kase McElwee (Vice President (start Jan 25))

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Phi Delta Theta was built on three (3) pillars since the Fraternity was founded. The pillars are: The cultivation of friendship among its members, the acquirement individually of a high degree of mental culture, and the attainment personally of a high standard of morality. Shortened, Phi Delta Theta Fraternity refer to these principles as Friendship, Sound Learning, and Rectitude.

What it reported doing in 2024

Program service revenue consists of Membership Dues and Assessments. Such program service revenue is primarily used for: Social Events/Gatherings, Member Education and Enrichment, Recruitment, Community Service, along with coordinating Chapter member's Occupancy and Meal Plan obligations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 99% 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: 94
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 0

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: -4%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.14; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -24.6% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 22 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 10 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.