Improved Benevolent & Protective 71

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237621216
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Harrisburg, PA, USA
Rating
90
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$66,348
Expenses
$65,582
Assets
$176,051
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

People named in this filing

  • GEORGE JONES (TREASURER)
  • R RIHARDSON (FINANCIAL SECRETARY)
  • DONALD DEAN (EXALTED RULER)

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 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Social and civic league

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 52% for direct work, and 48% for member benefits.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and assets have declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.2%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.68; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.5% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $66K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 12 of 12 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2010 to 2020
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.