Phi Beta Kappa Alumni of Greater Houston

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237339609
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Houston, TX, USA
Phone
7135249811
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$552,012
Expenses
$462,053
Assets
$3,866,287
Liabilities
$20,000

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WILLIAM MONROE PHD (PRESIDENT)
  • ANDREW DAVIS PHD (VICE PRESIDENT- DEVELOPMENT)
  • IVAN KOZAK (VICE PRESIDENT- DEVELOPMENT)
  • JOHN SHADDIX (VICE PRESIDENT- DEVELOPMENT)
  • MARTIN J SIEGEL JD (VICE PRESIDENT-SCHOLARSHIP)
  • DANIEL M MCCLURE (VICE PRESIDENT- FINANCE)

People named in this filing

  • WILLIAM MONROE PHD (PRESIDENT)
  • ANDREW DAVIS PHD (VICE PRESIDENT- DEVELOPMENT)
  • IVAN KOZAK (VICE PRESIDENT- DEVELOPMENT)

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

See schedule o

What it reported doing in 2024

To achieive the objective of the organization, college scholarships for high school seniors in the houston area are awarded. Scholarship payments are made directly to the college which each awardee is attending to be applied to tuition. In rare cases in which a student would not benefit from payments made to a college or university, a scholarship payment may be made directly to the scholarship recipient with evidence that the student has incurred expenses for educational purposes (tuition, fees, rent, food, lodging, travel, computing equipment, books, parking permits, study abroad, internet service, commuting expenses, etc.) equal to the value of the scholarship. See recipients list (exhibit a).

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 60% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 79% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 87.4%; rating input score 87
  • 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: 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; 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: 16.3%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.37; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.7% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 87.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $404K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.