Sigma Phi Epsilon Fraternity

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943235401
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Eugene, OR, USA
Phone
5414847394
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Student Sororities, Fraternities

Reported finances

Revenue
$61,934
Expenses
$56,507
Assets
$135,195
Liabilities
$12,530

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

People named in this filing

  • KEN MADDOX (OFFICER)
  • DAVID PIPER (OFFICER)
  • MAURICE LATIMER (OFFICER)

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 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Student housing

What it reported doing in 2016

To provide living quarters for students

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 93% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.2%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 90%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.8%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.39; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -35.7% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7.2% per year; rating input score 0; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76.2% of revenue deployed · 90% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $51K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 13 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2009 to 2016
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.