Alpha Iota Building Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
853069043
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Cave Springs, AR, USA
Phone
9797776851
Rating
46
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Recreational l Clubs

Reported finances

Revenue
$553,603
Expenses
$181,035
Assets
$416,141
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • John Looney (President & Director)
  • Bill Groce (Vice President & Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Nathan Morton (Director & Architect): $25,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Primary Exempt Purpose- To Unite College Men of Culture, Patriotism, and Honor in the Bond of Fraternity to Encourage Honorable Achievement in Every Field of Human Endeavor, To Promote the Spiritual, Social, Intellectual, and Moral Welfare of its Members; To Assist in the Aims and Purposes of Colleges and Universities; To Inspire Service in the Public Interest. The Building Corporation takes an active role in the various social activities and other functions of the chapter. The IRS has that an organization formed to buy, lease, and maintain a building exclusively for an organization recognized under 501C7 (Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity) itself qualifies for exemption under 501c7 if it takes an active role in various social activities and other chapter functions. See e.q. Letter Ruling 8207007 and Revenue Ruling 64-118. The main objective is to raise funds and facilitate all aspects of the development and construction of a fraternity house, then to maintain the house going forward.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Board of Directors have engaged with various contractors in the beginning stages of constructing a fraternity house for the Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity (national agricultural business fraternity) as soon as possible. Over the past year, The group continues to support the philanthropic efforts of the organization and to facilitate the growth and leadership of men in the organization. In the future, more program service accomplishments can be facilitated once a facility is constructed which we hope to have progress in the following year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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: 83
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 79
  • 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: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 67.3%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.3; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.8%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 111% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 119% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $25K · 7 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $140K reported
  • Consistency: 11 of 13 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule G fundraiser detail did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.