Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks 840

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
560468736
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2020
Location
Wilson, NC, USA
Phone
2522436159
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$173,028
Expenses
$183,293
Assets
$126,684
Liabilities
$55,625

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

People named in this filing

  • KENT ANDERSON (TREASURER)
  • EDWARD FULFORD (EXALTED RULE)
  • RICHARD SIDELINGER (SECRETARY)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Operating a fraternal organization

What it reported doing in 2025

Activities engaged in to opererate & promote charity.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 60% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
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. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.2%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 50.3%; rating input score 50
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 20th 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: -5.9%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.69; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.44; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.5% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.9% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91.2% of revenue deployed · 50.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $92K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.