Sigma Sigma Sigma Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521370798
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Phone
5404594212
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,044,835
Expenses
$1,008,463
Assets
$3,114,821
Liabilities
$104,726

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHELLY BATEMAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHELLY BATEMAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $121,963 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The tri sigma foundation secures and provides charitable resources to support educational leadership development, scholarship assistance, and philanthropic initiatives, including grants to charitable partners such as march of dimes and community health organizations. These initiatives primarily benefit women affiliated with sigma sigma sigma while advancing broader charitable purposes.

What it reported doing in 2024

March of dimes- the foundation has partnered with march of dimes for the year ended june 30, 2025. Sigma sigma sigma sorority collegiate and alumnae chapters participate in the collection of contributions on behalf of the march of dimes, and subsequent disbursements are made on behalf of the foundation to the march of dimes.diversity, equity and inclusion- the foundation established a community grant program providing funds to create educational programs allowing sorority members to take an active role in building an inclusive culture in their communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 64% for direct work, and 36% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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: 47
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 50.8%; rating input score 51
  • Program expense ratio: 48.7%; rating input score 49
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.24 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 89.6%; rating input score 90; 38th 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.5%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.09; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.1%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 50.8% of revenue deployed · 48.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $492K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $122K · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 51/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.