Chisholm Trail Lodge 2659

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
742290807
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Round Rock, TX, USA
Phone
5128633557
Rating
35
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Service Clubs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$102,289
Expenses
$22,681
Assets
$208,927
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

People named in this filing

  • ALEX ALEXANDER (TRUSTEE)
  • KIM ALEXANDER (TRUSTEE)
  • TOMMY JONES (TRUSTEE)

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 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The chisholm trail lodge 2659 benevolent and protective order of the elks is a local chapter of the national grand lodge. The mission of the organiztion is to inculcate the princiles of charity, justice, brotherly love and fidelity; to its members; to quicken the spirit of american patriotis; to cultivate good fellowship; to perpetuate itself as a fraternal organization, and to provide for its government, the benevolent and protective order of elks of the united states of america will serve the people and communities through beevolent progras, demonstrating that elks care and elks share.

What it reported doing in 2013

The order's benevolent, educational and patriotic community-minded programs in fields benefiting physically handicapped children sponsoring scouting, athletic teams, veteran's works, a national "hoop shoot" free-throw contest.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 18
  • Sustainability: 91
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

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: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 77.8%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.21; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

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

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 6 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • 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.

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: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.