Petersburg Lodge No 23 F & Am

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237224143
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Petersburg, AK, USA
Phone
9078926365
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Domestic Fraternal Societies

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,910
Expenses
$5,927
Assets
$252,304
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

People named in this filing

  • DALE BOSWORTH (MASTER OF LO)
  • BRUCE JONES (SENIOR WARDE)
  • GERALD LIND (JUNIOR WARDE)

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 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Providing friendship, morality, and brotherly love and providing sound charitable support within the confines of the lodge and the respective community of the lodge.

What it reported doing in 2014

Providing scholarships to students

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

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: 28
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 33.5%; rating input score 34
  • Program expense ratio: 28.5%; rating input score 28
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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; 64th 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: 25.1%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 42.57; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 33.5% of revenue deployed · 28.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 23 of 23 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $2K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2012 to 2014
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 34/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 28/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.