Lemont Furnace Sportsman's Club

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
475577480
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Lemont Furnace, PA, USA
Phone
7243222855
Rating
34
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Wildlife Preservation, Protection

Reported finances

Revenue
$167,183
Expenses
$117,706
Assets
$157,715
Liabilities
$39,491

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

People named in this filing

  • MARK S UHAZIE JR (VICE PRESIDE)
  • DELMAR P LOWRY (TREASURER)

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

1.to unite the sportsmen of lemont furnace in creating healthfularfd wnolesome iatteation tor-its members and th-eir families. 2. To promote athletic activities and to take interest in conservation, propagation and protection of all wild life species, ga't'e, fish, songbirds, etc. 3. To educate the citizens to better understand the benefits derived from our natural resources, and assure the wise use of same. 4. To cooperate with all organizations designedfor the same purpose, to favor busi.ness methods in land improvement and especially cooperate with land owners and farmers.

What it reported doing in 2024

Recreational and athletic activities: the club aims to unite sportsmen in creating healthful and wholesome recreation for its members and their families. It also promotes athletic activities and takes an interest in the conservation, propagation, and protection of wildlife species, game, fish, and songbirds. Educational initiatives: the club seeks to educate citizens to better understand the benefits derived from natural resources and to assure their wise use. Conservation efforts: the club cooperates with organizations designed for similar purposes, favors business methods in land improvement, and especially cooperates with landowners and farmers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
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

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 6
  • Sustainability: 63
  • 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 29.6%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.34; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.25; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 173.6% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 32.1% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 4 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.