Knights of Columbus
Legal name: Knights of Columbus 4194 Fr Raho Council
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 237102149
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2023–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2022
- Location
- Morton, IL, USA
- Phone
- 3092631211
- Rating
- 46
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Philanthropy, Charity, Voluntarism Promotion
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $101,868
- Expenses
- $98,063
- Assets
- $44,684
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
People named in this filing
- RALPH MATTIA (ADVOCATE,TRUSTE)
- FR ADAM CESAREK (CHAPLAIN)
- TERRY COCHRAN (3 YR 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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Knights of Columbus was established in 1882 to provide a means by which Catholic men could support the Catholic Church, provide financial protection to protect their families, and engage in works of charity to benefit the less fortunate. The **Knights of Columbus, Fr. Raho #4194 Council** , was founded in March 1956. Presently, there are over 200 men in our Council. Our Council Hall is owned, debt-free, by the Tazewell Columbus Club (TCC). Any practicing Catholic male 18 years of age or older is welcome to join our Council. The **Knights of Columbus** in Morton functions as a key _lay Catholic organization_ affiliated with **Blessed Sacrament Parish**. Their mission and activities are cl.
What it reported doing in 2024
Organization has empowered catholic men to fulfill the mission of the organization.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 78% 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
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: 90
- Accountability: 70
- Sustainability: 47
- 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: 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: 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: 3.7%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.46; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 38% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 10 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
- 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: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.