Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks 1381

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
380341607
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Sturgis, MI, USA
Rating
43
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$175,767
Expenses
$174,644
Assets
$740,247
Liabilities
$129,394

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • STEPHANIE MARBAUGH (TREASURER): $3,300 total reported compensation
  • MIRANDA PAGELS (TREASURER): $2,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Social club/assist with community affairs

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 filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 0

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; 63rd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.6%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.24; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -2.8% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $3K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2015 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.