Palatka Lodge No 1232 Bpo Elks

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
590233023
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2012
Forms available
Form 990 2012
Location
Palatka, FL, USA
Phone
3863253413
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Community Service Clubs

Reported finances

Revenue
$38,195
Expenses
$49,605
Assets
$272,686
Liabilities
$6,806

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To inculcate the principles of charity, justice, brotherly love and fidelity; to recognize a belief in god; to promote the welfare and enhance the hapiness of its members; to quicken the spirit of american patriotism; to cultivate good fellowship; to perpetuate itself as a fraternal organization, and to provide for its government, the benevolent and protective order of elks of the united states of america will serve the people and communities through benevolent program, demonstrating that elks are and elks share.

What it reported doing in 2012

To inculcate the principles of charity, justice, brotherly love and fidelity.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 64% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 75%; rating input score 75; 1st 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; 65th 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: -29.9%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.5; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -11.2% per year; rating input score 0; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2010 to 2012
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.