Argus Lodge #545 F & Am
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 340755002
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2021
- Forms available
- Form 990 2021
- Location
- Canfield, OH, USA
- Phone
- 3307997882
- Rating
- 47
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $203,655
- Expenses
- $64,684
- Assets
- $1,017,408
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- RUSSELL GILLAM III (SECRETARY): $2,925 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Masonic lodge
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 67% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
MIXED - 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: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 63
- Sustainability: 86
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
- 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 68.2%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 15.73; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.5%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -57.9% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 15.3% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 415 of 415 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $3K · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 15 current checks pass · 6 findings to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2014 to 2021
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX AllOtherExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.