Pi Beta Phi Fraternity Pennsylvania Theta Chapter
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 232568985
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2010–2017
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2017
- Location
- Villanova, PA, USA
- Phone
- 6362560680
- Rating
- 35
- Verdict
- REVIEW
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Student Sororities, Fraternities
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $64,183
- Expenses
- $65,451
- Assets
- $24,420
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
18 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Elizabeth O'Malley 2017 (Chapter President)
- Carter Douglas 2018 (Chapter President)
People named in this filing
- Elizabeth O'Malley 2017 (Chapter President)
- Claire Welzant 2017 (VP Member Development)
- Lauren Miller 2017 (VP Fraternity 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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To mutually encourage and assist members in social, mental, and moral advancement.
What it reported doing in 2017
The Pennsylvania Theta Chapter of Pi Beta Phi Fraternity is a membership organization supported by dues, fees, charges, or other funds paid by its members and provides goods, facilities, and services to members while assisting students in improving various educational and leadership skills by supporting philanthropic and community service projects. During the current fiscal year, the chapter served approximately 67 members.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Membership-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
- 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
REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and revenue has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 1
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 41
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 1.3%; rating input score 1
- 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: -2%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.37; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: -1.2% per year; rating input score 0; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -9.2% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 1.3% of revenue deployed
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 18 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
- Schedules: 1 filed schedules
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2010 to 2017
- 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 1/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.