Bucks Lodge No 1169 Loyal Order of Moose

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
230822945
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Bristol, PA, USA
Phone
2157889859
Rating
38
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fraternal Beneficiary Societies

Reported finances

Revenue
$289,583
Expenses
$289,040
Assets
$789,447
Liabilities
$26,476

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

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHAEL PITRIZZI (ADMINISTRATOR): $7,975 total reported compensation
  • JOSEPH FIDA (ADMINISTRATOR): $2,876 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Social club that contributes to programs for the benefit of children ans senior citizens.

What it reported doing in 2015

Bingo

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 74% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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

REVIEW - 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: 2
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 1.7%; rating input score 2
  • Program expense ratio: 1.8%; rating input score 2
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 0th 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: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.2%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.73; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.8%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 1.7% of revenue deployed · 1.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $8K · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 10 of 14 current checks pass · 4 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules
  • 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.

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 2/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.