Delta Delta Delta Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
752184529
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Dallas, TX, USA
Phone
8176338001
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alumni Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,993,019
Expenses
$4,572,546
Assets
$29,300,898
Liabilities
$161,170

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KAREN HUGHES WHITE (CEO THROUGH 3/6/24)
  • MINDY TUCKER FLETCHER (CEO AS OF 3/7/24)

Highest reported compensation

  • BETH BURKES (CDO): $199,909 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Tri delta's foundation raises funds to provide transformational programs, scholarships and emergency financial support to empower our sisters for a lifetime. We invest in women. We are the only organization that connects our nearly 250,000 members with ways to empower collegiate and alumnae women. We are sisters helping sisters.

What it reported doing in 2024

Tri delta's foundation awards undergraduate and graduate scholarships to tri delta members along with needs based grants to members facing a financial crisis. The foundation also awards grants to the fraternity for educational and leadership purposes. Educational scholarships totaling $483,816 were awarded to 222 members. Emergency financial assistance totaling $190,584 was granted to 36 members through our crescent funds. Over $872,243 was granted to tri delta's fraternity to support educational and leadership programming, including career readiness, mental health education, and sexual assault prevention, benefiting over 22,487 members. Additionally, grants totaling $835,441 for educational space at at 19 tri delta houses benefited over 2,000 members.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 89% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 84% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 56
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 86
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 43.2%; rating input score 43
  • Program expense ratio: 66.6%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.75 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 2nd 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: 46.5%; rating input score 46; 15th 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: 49.2%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.41; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.4%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 43.2% of revenue deployed · 66.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $200K · 17 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 36 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 43/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 46/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 29/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grants require schedule f did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.