Alpha Chi National College Honor Society

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
746047760
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Little Rock, AR, USA
Phone
8004774225
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$653,003
Expenses
$558,414
Assets
$1,792,413
Liabilities
$14,896

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

Leadership & pay

28 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dr Linda Cowan (President)
  • Dr Bonita Cade (Vice President)
  • Lara Q Noah (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Lara Q Noah (Executive Director): $93,644 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Alpha Chi National College Honor Society's mission is to recognize and promote academic excellence among college and university students and, by encouraging a spirit of service and leadership, to nurture those elements of character that make scholarship effective for good.

What it reported doing in 2025

Alpha Chi chapters are supported by a robust chapter support program. Alpha Chi provides the software used by chapters to manage invitations and registrations (which includes national and local dues income management), and administrative support and training. Printing and shipping costs for all new member items sent to chapters for distribution are part of this support. In addition, a fund of $7,000 a year is set aside for chapter activity grants that chapters can apply for to create on-campus events and programs. Advisors are presented with recognition pins at significant intervals of service. An annual fund of $2,750 for need-based dues scholarships is available to chapters.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 82% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 79% for direct work, and 21% 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 62
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 73.7%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.24 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

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; 78th 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: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 14.5%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.21; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.8%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.1% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.8% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76% of revenue deployed · 73.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 22 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $412K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $94K · 28 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 44/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.