The Tau Beta Pi Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
620479545
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2011
Location
Knoxville, TN, USA
Phone
8655464578
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Student Sororities, Fraternities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,133,223
Expenses
$3,884,015
Assets
$51,265,470
Liabilities
$2,366,698

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Curtis Gomulinski (Executive Director)
  • Ron Hickling (Executive Councillor, 2024 President)
  • Marla Peterson (Executive Councillor, 2025 President, 2024 Vice President)
  • Thomas Pinkham (Executive Councillor, 2025 Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Curtis Gomulinski (Executive Director): $156,826 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

As the only academic honor society that confers recognition on eligible individuals from all engineering disciplines, Tau Beta Pi recognizes those who have conferred honor upon their Alma Maters by distinguished scholarship and exemplary character as students in engineering, or by their attainments as alumni in the field of engineering, provides leadership and professional development training for engineering students and alumni members, and promotes lifelong alumnus member involvement and cultivates a community of dedicated high achievers.

What it reported doing in 2024

Convention, District, Engineering Futures, MindSET, Greater Interest in Government (GIG), Student Assistance Held national and regional meetings of its members where collegiate chapter officers receive leadership training, professional development, and chapter operations training. Students receive training in possible service activities including tutoring students, counseling high-schoolers, training K-12 math and science students, and providing volunteers and funds to other charities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 74% for direct work, 26% for grants, and 0% for member benefits.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.4%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 83.2%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.82 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 3.6%; rating input score 4; 12th 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: 36.7%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 13.2; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76.4% of revenue deployed · 83.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $3.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $157K · 14 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $523K reported
  • Consistency: 46 of 47 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 4/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 16/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.