Lake Conference
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 411433319
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- Loretto, MN, USA
- Phone
- 6123285688
- Rating
- 85
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $76,387
- Expenses
- $70,912
- Assets
- $1,771
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
People named in this filing
- JAIME SHERWOOD (EXECUTIVE SE)
- P PAETZEL - EDINA HS (DIRECTOR)
- C BALLARD- HOPKINS HS (DIRECTOR)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The lake conference is a group of seven high schools providing competition and special events in the areas of academics, arts, activities and athletics. Students participate in these events and are awarded medals, trophies, plaques, certificates and ribbons. Examples of these events are cheerleading, dance teams, concert bands, quiz bowl, several one day athletic events and leadership workshops for students.
What it reported doing in 2025
The lake conference prides itself on being one of the premier high school conferences in the state of Minnesota. Currently member schools field a full complement of 36 interscholastic sports and 22 fine arts activities.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Membership-supported. 84% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 92
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 35
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 89.1%; rating input score 89
- Program expense ratio: 96%; rating input score 96
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 7.2%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.02; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -7.4% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 89.1% of revenue deployed · 96% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $68K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.