Elks National Foundation

Legal name: Elks National Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
263718342
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2025, Form 990-N 2008
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
(773) 755-4728
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$61,768,710
Expenses
$49,207,140
Assets
$954,119,229
Liabilities
$12,243,641

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • JAMES O'KELLEY III (DIRECTOR): $182,094 total reported compensation
  • DEBORAH KAHLER DOLES (ASST DIRECTOR): $126,142 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Elks National Foundation helps Elks build stronger communities through programs that support youth, veterans, and community service.

What it reported doing in 2025

The foundation provided grants to the elks state associations to help fund their charitable activities. These activities include medical care and research, in-home treatment for children with disabilities, youth camps, shelters for abused women, and state level programs consistent with those provided by the foundation. The foundation provided grants ranging to $10,000 to help elks lodges implement projects and programs that address unmet needs in their communities in lasting and meaningful ways.the foundation provided funds to the elks veterans service commission for various programs benefiting veterans. The foundation also provided funds to the elks veterans memorial restoration trust to help pay for needed maintenance and upkeep of the elks veterans memorial and to the elks national drug awareness commission to pursue the foundation's drug awareness program.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 67% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 94% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 87
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 87%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.52 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.7%; rating input score 99; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 20.3%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 19.39; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.6%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 23 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 87% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $42.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $182K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $114K reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1538 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1534 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 18/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.