Delta Gamma Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
316034001
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Columbus, OH, USA
Phone
6144818169
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Student Sororities, Fraternities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,406,233
Expenses
$7,089,171
Assets
$57,999,745
Liabilities
$2,399,508

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LESLIE LOOP MARTIN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LESLIE LOOP MARTIN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $165,852 total reported compensation
  • ERNEST HOLLADAY (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE): $125,147 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The delta gamma foundation fosters lifetime enrichment for members, promotes service for sight, and partners with the fraternity to ensure the future of our sisterhood.

What it reported doing in 2024

Other programs are developed to promote and encourage higher education, self development, and aid to the blind. These programs benefit all delta gamma undergraduates and sight impaired persons. The foundation provided grants to other exempt organizations who support and endorse programs for aid to persons who are blind and help with sight preservation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 85% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 94% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 54
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 85
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59.7%; rating input score 60
  • Program expense ratio: 65.2%; rating input score 65
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.58 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.2%; 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: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 78.5%; rating input score 79; 16th 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 31.9%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.18; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.1%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59.7% of revenue deployed · 65.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $4.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $166K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 38 of 40 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 49 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 40 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 23/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 59/100.