Benevolent Protective Order of Elks 847

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
041079584
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Leominster, MA, USA
Phone
9785348737
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Community Service Clubs

Reported finances

Revenue
$13,924
Expenses
$25,790
Assets
$180,362
Liabilities
$99,542

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • JOHN DICK (LOYAL KNIGHT): $12,815 total reported compensation
  • PAUL DOIG (SECRETARY): $5,000 total reported compensation
  • DENNIS MAHONEY (TREASURER): $5,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Fraternal and charitable activities

What it reported doing in 2014

Aided in community with families in need, provided many activities to promote fraternal relationships within the membership

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 70% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • 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: 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -85.2%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.99; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.55; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: Limited

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -10.7% per year; rating input score 0; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.6% per year; rating input score 0; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $13K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 11 of 11 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2010 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.

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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.