Beta Psi Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201217639
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
4049626438
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$234,260
Expenses
$246,518
Assets
$2,696,840
Liabilities
$31,450

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Greg Davis (President)
  • Joe Kinsey (Immediate Past President)
  • Robby Rankin (VP, Governance (Interim President))
  • Tom Turco (President-elect)

People named in this filing

  • Alan Madewell (VP, Foundation Relations)
  • Greg Davis (President)
  • JD Richey (VP, Finance & Investments)

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

Our mission is to promote and enhance educational opportunities for active brothers and pledges of the beta psi chapter of the sigma chi fraternity at the Georgia institute of technology.

What it reported doing in 2025

The beta psi foundation promotes, encourages and supports educational activities for the bill george beta psi chapter of the sigma chi fraternity by both awarding scholarships and student aid and developing future leaders. In 2025, the foundation awarded $80,700 in scholarships to Georgia tech undergraduates. By hosting various social and networking activities with alumni and the undergraduate chapter, brotherhood is fostered among alumni and undergraduate brothers. Additionally, the foundation encourages leadership for life, which promotes continued involvement from beta psi alumni in the lives and development of brothers and pledges.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 68% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 42% for direct work, and 58% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72.3%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 56.3%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5.2%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 10.94; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 72.3% of revenue deployed · 56.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $139K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 21 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.