Amsterdam Elks Lodge BPOE 101

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
141412620
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Amsterdam, NY, USA
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$78,753
Expenses
$134,639
Assets
$1,898,108
Liabilities
$10,216

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Randy Schimmente (Exhalted Ruler)
  • Elizabeth Rice (Leading Knight)
  • Joseph Weir (Loyal Knight)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Amsterdam elks invest i n their community through progra ms th at help children grow up healthy and drug-free

What it reported doing in 2025

Payments to affiliates - payments to Elks National and NY State Orgamization, state Major projects and Elks National foundation to support the Elks mission.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Affiliate network. The nonprofit sent 62% of its reported program spending through affiliated organizations.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 31
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 49.1%; rating input score 49
  • Program expense ratio: 11.2%; rating input score 11
  • 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: 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -71%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 14.1; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.4% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 49.1% of revenue deployed · 11.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $15K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 49/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.