LaSalle Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
350867966
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2025
Location
South Bend, IN, US
Phone
(574) 289-0337
Rating
89
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,394,179
Expenses
$2,245,066
Assets
$5,844,279
Liabilities
$937,761

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

Leadership & pay

54 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRISTOPHER MILLER (IMMEDIATE PAST COUNCIL PRESIDENT)
  • ROBERT BYCRAFT (COUNCIL PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JAMES HULGAN (DIRECTOR): $54,999 total reported compensation
  • JOHN CARY (DIRECTOR): $53,098 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the Scouting America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.

What it reported doing in 2025

Activities & training: lasalle council is comprised of 4 districts covering 8 counties. Over 2,400 youth participated in scouting programs council wide. Throughout the year, each district plans and provides various age-appropriate activities for the youth and families. These activities bring scouters together to reinforce the program lessons presented at the unit level. Examples include pinewood derbies, bowl-o-ramas, recognition dinners, and parent/scout days. Council-wide activities are also held for all 4 districts, focusing on recognition and community service projects. Lasalle council also provides training, administrative, and other support to the over 1,200 volunteers and youth leaders who deliver the scouting programs to youth.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 63% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 95
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.5%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 89.8%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.79 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 94.5%; rating input score 94; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.2%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.6; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.8%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 85.5% of revenue deployed · 89.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 52 of 52 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $55K · 54 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $109K reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 39/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.