Gamma Iota Sigma Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
921073408
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Powell, OH, USA
Phone
4849914471
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Reported finances

Revenue
$246,200
Expenses
$113,201
Assets
$544,932
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GRACE GRANT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • NICK ABRAHAM (PRESIDENT)
  • MICHAEL KLEIN (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
  • DAN SPRAGG (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DEBBIE GOLDSTINE (VICE PRESIDENT (TERM START 9/2024))
  • TAY HOANG (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • GRACE GRANT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $233,596 total reported compensation
  • ALYSSA BOUCHARD (SVP, DEVELOPMENT): $128,000 total reported compensation
  • NIKIA STOWE (SVP, UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIPS): $126,646 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 gamma iota sigma foundation serves a mission of ensuring equitable access to careers in insurance, risk management and actuarial science by lowering social and financial barriers for all students interested in industry careers.

What it reported doing in 2024

The foundation's focus areas include mental wellness, professional development, accessibility, and chapter support. Mental wellness focuses on mental health resources, peer networking spaces, and holistic programming at conferences. Professional development programs and resources provide professional attire scholarships, travel scholarships, professional headshots, exam fee reimbursements, and other programming. Accessibility ensures that conferences and events are accessible, meeting the needs of all students. Chapter support provides for chapter expansion and chapter development grants to university partners. The foundation provided resources and direct financial support to over 200 students and 34 chapters in 2024.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 65% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 80
  • Sustainability: 79
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 41.8%; rating input score 42
  • Program expense ratio: 90.9%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 9th 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: 70.7%; rating input score 71; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 54%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.81; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.2%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.8% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -20.3% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 27.8% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 41.8% of revenue deployed · 90.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 14 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $103K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $234K · 20 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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 42/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.