The Ohio State University Men's Varsity O Alumni Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
316024345
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015, Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Columbus, OH, USA
Phone
6142929908
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alumni Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$238,822
Expenses
$107,100
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ALAN BRADY (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • STEVE CHAPPELEAR (PRESIDENT ELECT)
  • GARTH COX (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ALAN BRADY (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $34,992 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the men's varsity "o" alumni association is "athletes helping athletes." this is accomplished through different programs, benefits, and initiatives, including: providing contributions to the general scholarship funds for different sports; awarding post graduate scholarships; endowing scholarships that allow deserving student-athletes to receive a proper education; establishing career opportunities for graduating student-athletes by networking with former student-athletes; providing members benefits that provide opportunities to enhance their current well-being; along with many other benefits.

What it reported doing in 2015

Scholarships - the Ohio state university varsity 'o' alumni association provides contributions for the general scholarship funds of the varsity sports represented by the organization. The organization also awards a variety of other scholarships including an annual post-graduate scholarship to graduating student-athletes who plan on continuing their education at the Ohio state university.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 96% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 71% for direct work, 27% for grants, and 2% for member benefits.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 36.9%; rating input score 37
  • Program expense ratio: 82.4%; rating input score 82
  • 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; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 55.2%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 32.7%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 23.7% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -21.6% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 36.9% of revenue deployed · 82.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $88K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $35K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.