International Association of Lions Clubs 7553 Madison
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 586050414
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2022–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2011, Form 990-N 2023
- Location
- Madison, GA, USA
- Phone
- 8439341010
- Rating
- 69
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $13,101
- Expenses
- $64,060
- Assets
- $410,937
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Cameron Smoak (President)
- Philip Smeltzer (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- Johnny Whitaker (Board Member)
- Gary Savage (Board Member)
- Jay Moon (Board Member)
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
The Madison Lions Club financially supports programs and services for the blind visually impaired local youth and local community groups and agencies.
What it reported doing in 2025
The Madison Lions Club hosts an animal show for the county 4H and carnival rides for individuals. The Club operates a food concession stand charges $3 for adult and $1 children admission. A 25% royualty from ride tickets contributes to revenue. The fair runs from Tuesday to Saturday in October. Revenue sources are 65% for ride royalties 30% admission fees and 5% food. The food is the only area with direct expenses. The largest expense item is liability insurance of $14,056 for 2024. Police officer security was $3,400. Attendance was estimated at 3,000 children and 2,000 adults. Saturday is the highest volume. Annual and daily attendance variations are driven primarily by weather factors.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 63% 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
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 84
- Transparency & Controls: 57
- Accountability: 70
- Sustainability: 35
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 85.2%; rating input score 85
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- 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: -389%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.41; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -3.5% per year; rating input score 0; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 85.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 25 of 25 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $55K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 35 of 42 current checks pass · 7 findings to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ConferencesMeetings column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLegal column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology 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 — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PaymentsToAffiliates column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.