Alpha Lambda Alumni Corporation Of Theta Chi Fraternity

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
920566953
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Worthington, OH, USA
Rating
51
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Student Sororities, Fraternities

Reported finances

Revenue
$337,458
Expenses
$187,785
Assets
$277,422
Liabilities
$67,438

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Carter Carstens (President)
  • Ethan Quill (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Bill Stephenson (Director)
  • Max Maistros (Director)
  • Roger Obenauf (Director)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Alpha Lambda Alumni Corporation of Theta Chi Fraternity supports the housing mission of Theta Chi Fraternity by providing a variety of services and programs to the Alpha Lambda Chapter (the Chapter) at The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio. The primary function is to help the Chapter secure housing facilities at which the Chapter can undertake living, recreational and social activities. We will collect chapter housing fees and assist the chapter in acquiring by purchase, lease or otherwise and furnishing a campus suite or other meeting space at which the chapter can undertake its recreational and social activities. We will also assist the Chapter in securing a facility providing housing, as well as meeting space, as appropriate. Once the Chapter secures housing facilities, we will collect chapter housing fees, assume ownership and management of chapter facilities and lease the chapter facilities to the Chapter and its members. We will derive substantially all of its revenue from

What it reported doing in 2025

The primary function will be to help the Chapter secure housing facilities at which the Chapter can undertake their living, recreational and social activities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 65% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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 revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 43.7%; rating input score 44
  • Program expense ratio: 78.5%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • 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: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 44.4%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.48; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 91.6% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 86% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 43.7% of revenue deployed · 78.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 8 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 15 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 44/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.