Sigma Chi Building Association of Peoria

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
454454497
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Edwards, IL, USA
Phone
6307304676
Rating
45
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Student Sororities, Fraternities

Reported finances

Revenue
$136,944
Expenses
$322,615
Assets
$1,217,493
Liabilities
$105,704

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Joeseph Frueh (President)

People named in this filing

  • Jack Wilkins (Director)
  • Joeseph Frueh (President)
  • Charles Sellers (Director)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Sigma Chi Building Association of Peoria was formed solely for the purposes of obtaining and maintaining housing for the undergraduate members of the Sigma Chi Fraternity of Bradley University. All revenues in 2020 are from either (1) undergraduate members for the rent and maintenance of the property owned by this filer or (2) alumni donations to support the organization's mission. All expenses are for the maintenance, insurance, and other ownership costs of the property owned by this filer.

What it reported doing in 2025

Sigma Chi Building Association of Peoria IL owns, maintains, and operates an undergraduate housing facility located at 1408 W Fredonia Ave, Peoria IL for the benefit of the undergraduate members of the Sigma Chi Fraternity, Bradley University chapter. The undergraduate chapter pays rent and maintenance revenues to this filer. The filer pays mortgage, insurance, maintenance and other similar expenses for the operation of this property. This filer is not engaged in any other activity.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 86% 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: 33
  • Growth: 40

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; 64th 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; 64th 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: -135.6%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.77; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -8.1% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $307K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 10 of 11 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.