Gamma Chi-house Corporation of Delta Delta Delta

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
841650389
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2009–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2017, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2011
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
7206365905
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Domestic Fraternal Societies

Reported finances

Revenue
$18
Expenses
$60,503
Assets
$231,245

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KELLY CONNOR (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • KELLY CONNOR (PRESIDENT)
  • KIMBERLY MILLER (TREASURER)
  • KENTRA TIERNAN (SECRETARY)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The primary purpose of the gamma chi house corporation of delta delta delta is social, civic and educational and particularly to benefit the collegiate members of gamma chi chapter of delta delta delta fraternity and to acquire and hold title to real estate and/or personal property and provide for the management and use thereof for the sole use and benefit of the collegiate members of gamma chi chapter of delta delta delta fraturnity, all in furtherance of the objectives of delta delta delta fraternity.

What it reported doing in 2020

The house corporation provides housing for up to 30 of the delta delta delta sorority. Housing grants are provided to sorority women who choose to live in the sorority house instead of in university housing. The money is offered to replace equal grants the women would have received from the university if they chose to live in university housing.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Transfer-based 990-EZ. The 990-EZ reports grants or member benefits, but it does not separate enough spending to show the nonprofit’s full delivery mix.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Expenses are high relative to revenue and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -336,027.8%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.82; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 38.2% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 5 of 5 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2009 to 2020
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.