Louisiana Epsilon Chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
720551376
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Evanston, IL, USA
Phone
2243070659
Rating
47
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$682,787
Expenses
$493,920
Assets
$252,784
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Ryan Theriot (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • Blake Ranlett (PRESIDENT)
  • Greg Somers (CEO)

People named in this filing

  • Ryan Theriot (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • Kyle Goodner (TREASURER)
  • Blake Ranlett (PRESIDENT)

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

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

Overview

Mission

To promote the highest level of friendship scholarship service and character for our members based upon ideals set forth by our Founders and as specifically enunciated in our creed.

What it reported doing in 2024

Scholarship - We promote a learning environment and provide a room in the house for a study area. We help each other scholastically by studying together for tests and working with our faculty advisor. We promote strong academics and strive to make each member a good student. Community Service - Our main beneficiary to our service events is the Childrens Miracle Network which provides medical equipment and treatment to children whose families cannot afford the help that is needed. We also helped in a Habitat for Humanity build where we helped two local families by building each a house. Brotherhood - Our range of social events stretches from basketball tournaments to mixers with sororities. We strive to become best friends with everyone in the fraternity and to form life long friendships. Our organization helps mold college age men into adults and prepare them for life after college.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 100% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 27.7%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.51; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -15% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.4% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 100 of 100 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $494K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 34 of 39 current checks pass · 5 findings to review
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX AllOtherExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLegal column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.