Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks
Legal name: Carteret Lodge # 2235 Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 237130157
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Carteret, NJ, USA
- Phone
- 7325412880
- Rating
- 52
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Fraternal Beneficiary Societies
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $167,202
- Expenses
- $119,387
- Assets
- $642,116
- Liabilities
- $311,933
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
16 people listed
People named in this filing
- Lars Astrom (Exalted Ruler)
- Salvatore Aurello (Esteemed Leading Knight)
- Laura Peticca (Esteemed Loyal Knight)
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
To inculcate the principles of Charity, Justice, Brotherly Love and Fidelity; to promote the welfare and enhance the happiness of its members; to quicken the spirit of American patriotism; and to cultivate good fellowship.
What it reported doing in 2025
Handicapped Children - The Lodge is active in helping children and adults who were born with or acquired disabilities. The lodge has supplied medically necessary clothing and equipmentwhen needed and also required therapy treatments. The town Office of the Disabled makes the lodge aware of residents needing assistance. The lodge also subsidizes social functions for special need residents and it hosts the annual Disabilities Awareness Day at no charge to the organizer. The lodge also participates in district and state handicap projects.
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: 100
- Accountability: 82
- Sustainability: 70
- 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
- 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: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 28.6%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.38; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.49; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -7.7% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $26K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 16 people listed
- Consistency: 13 of 20 current checks pass · 7 findings to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX AllOtherExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ConferencesMeetings column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesAccounting column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PaymentsToAffiliates column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.