Keeseville Elks Lodge No 2072 Bpoe

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
141438747
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Keeeville, NY, USA
Phone
5188342072
Rating
50
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$268,563
Expenses
$218,180
Assets
$183,874
Liabilities
$56,036

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • JAMES COBB (SECRETARY): $5,000 total reported compensation
  • PAUL LAMOY (TREASURER): $5,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

A fraternal organization dedicated to the charitable principles of the benevolent and protective order of the elks, as such, community enrichment is fostered.

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

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: 93
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 48
  • 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 18.8%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.84; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.3; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.6%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.2% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $5K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 15 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.