Alpha Chi Omega Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
310949882
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Indianapolis, IN, USA
Phone
3175795050
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Student Sororities, Fraternities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,339,710
Expenses
$6,037,514
Assets
$35,587,726
Liabilities
$967,922

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KATIE LAMPINEN GAFFIN (CEO)

People named in this filing

  • MAREE MAGLIOCCHETTI LATTANZI (CHAIR)
  • ANNE TEAFORD-CANTOR (TREASURER)
  • TONYA LEE TATUM (SECRETARY)

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

Through the real.strong.women. Experience, alpha chi omega cultivates impactful communities where women are inspired to connect, lead, grow and serve. The alpha chi omega foundation strives to realize and sustain the educational and philanthropic values of alpha chi omega through successful fundraising and stewardship. Generous gifts from our members and friends enhance the real. Strong. Women. Experience and empower our members to impact their communities and world positively.

What it reported doing in 2024

Community impact: alpha chi omega works throughout the nation to build awareness of domestic violence. Chapters work with local domestic violence organizations to raise funds and awareness. The education and leadership initiatives department develops national opportunities to support this cause and assists individual chapters in their efforts. Major fundraising initiatives occur in october (domestic violence awareness month) and february (healthy relationships week).

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 80% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 93% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 69
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.8%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 68.5%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.49 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 93%; rating input score 93; 28th 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: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 4.8%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.89; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.8% of revenue deployed · 68.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $4.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 63 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 63 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.