Theta Xi Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
436049500
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
3149936294
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,239,667
Expenses
$612,118
Assets
$6,386,865
Liabilities
$24,273

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • J TANNER MARCANTEL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • KENNETH A MILLER (CHAIRMAN)
  • STEPHEN D BAKER (VICE CHAIRMAN)
  • DONALD S MERINGER (SECRETARY)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide educational programming and scholarship assistance to the undergratuate members of theta xi fraternity.

What it reported doing in 2024

Leadership development: the presidents academy focuses on learning to apply leadership competencies including influencing peers to grasp a shared vision, motivating/empowering chapter members for engagement, and decision making style/skills through activities including common problem solving, support, and sharing of ideas designed for small groups. The rising stars academy is an interactive and experimental academy that provides members an opportunity to assess and develop their leadership styles and skills, gather ideas to strengthen their chapters in the areas of recruitment, membership education and overall operations, and strengthens team building skills through an outdoor leadership challenge course. The district leadership academies are held at locations throughout the country and provide undergraduate leaders and members with the opportunity to participate in educational programs and leadership development activities that address current campus and fraternity issues and expand each member's educational opportunities while providing valuable leadership and citizenship training.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 86% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 80% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 89
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 37.5%; rating input score 38
  • Program expense ratio: 53.5%; rating input score 53
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.12 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 92.8%; rating input score 93; 40th 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: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 50.6%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 10.43; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.1% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 37.5% of revenue deployed · 53.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $327K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 38/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 41/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.