Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks Lodge 1065

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
540455568
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Clifton Forge, VA, USA
Phone
5408635556
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Domestic Fraternal Societies

Reported finances

Revenue
$147,028
Expenses
$112,245
Assets
$130,685
Liabilities
$6,303

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • LANA DOTSON (SECRETARY): $3,400 total reported compensation
  • WAYNE HUMPHRIES (TREASURER): $1,800 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Our goal is to create an environment for our members that encourages individual and group support to facilitate a greater good in the community as well as the causes of the elks national foundation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 74% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.6%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 86.3%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 10th 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 23.7%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.16; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.6%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.6% of revenue deployed · 86.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 232 of 10 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $97K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $3K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Independent members within voting members did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.