Lambda Chi Alpha Educational Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
136266432
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Carmel, IN, USA
Phone
3178728000
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Student Sororities, Fraternities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,967,244
Expenses
$6,085,686
Assets
$27,584,517
Liabilities
$138,588

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dan Hartmann (President & CEO)
  • Nicholas Bratvold (Vice President)
  • Katie Michelle Kowalski (Vice President, Engagement)

Highest reported compensation

  • Dan Hartmann (President & CEO): $316,306 total reported compensation
  • Nicholas Bratvold (Vice President): $184,628 total reported compensation
  • John Michael (Stewardship Officer): $139,404 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To invest in the ever-growing educational pursuits of Lambda Chi Alpha, enabling its transformation into the premier men's service learning and leadership development organization.

What it reported doing in 2025

Lambda Chi Alpha Fraternity Grant $2,325,752 - Grant investments for values-based programs and research - leadership training, interpersonal development, competency-based learning, and credentialing.- Scholarships and Fellowships $171,272 - Undergraduate and graduate school scholarships based on need, academic merit, and community leadership, and furthering the educational endeavors of the recipient. Chapter educational housing grants $695,101 - Grants for eligible educational programming, facilities, equipment, and materials for the undergraduate members The foundation conducts feasibility studies on behalf of Lambda Chi Alpha campus fraternity houses to provide guidance for developing a fundraising campaign in order for the house to raise funds which will be used for educational purposes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 98% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 38
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 33%; rating input score 33
  • Program expense ratio: 53.7%; rating input score 54
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.99 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 49.1%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.53; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.6%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 33% of revenue deployed · 53.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $316K · 21 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 33/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.