Benevolent & Protective Order Elks Lodge 2398

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
356233839
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017, Form 990-EZ 2009
Location
Angola, IN, USA
Phone
2606656408
Rating
32
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Service Clubs

Reported finances

Revenue
$248,447
Expenses
$122,698
Assets
$112,081
Liabilities
$19,918

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • GLENN LEACH (SECRETARY): $4,248 total reported compensation
  • MICHELLE ADAMS (TREASURER): $600 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Promote brotherhood through group activities and community involvement.

What it reported doing in 2017

To provide facilities for members to assemble for food and special activities

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

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: 82
  • Accountability: 10
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 40

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: 90%; rating input score 90; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 82.8%; rating input score 83; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 50.6%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.91; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -80% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -9.1% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 9 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $4K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 11 of 13 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2010 to 2017
  • 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.

  • 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: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.