Canton Elks #68

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
340093770
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Salem, OH, USA
Phone
3304530105
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Service Clubs

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,740
Expenses
$32,482
Assets
$104,432
Liabilities
$4,769

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Gean Stratton (Secretary): $900 total reported compensation
  • John A Cice Sr (Treasurer): $900 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Same as line 1 part III

What it reported doing in 2015

All Activities

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 61% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 16
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 58%; rating input score 58
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -176.7%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.22; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.5%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -43.9% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -68.4% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 45.6% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 58% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 177 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $19K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $900 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2013 to 2015
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.