Pittsburgh South Hills Elks BPOE 2213

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
251158674
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2011
Location
Bethel Park, PA, USA
Phone
4128310616
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$43,480
Expenses
$67,156
Assets
$734,512
Liabilities
$262,414

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Bonnie L Filyo Steigner (President)
  • Diane Harvison (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Robert A Preksta (Trustee)
  • Raymond Walton (Trustee)
  • Marlene Pennington (Trustee)

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 recognize a belief in God, to promote the welfare and enhance the happiness of its members to quicken the spirit of American patriotism to cultivate good fellowship to perpetuate itself as a fraternal organization, and to provide for its governance, The Benevolent and Protective Order of elks of the United States of America will serve the people and communities through benevolent programs, demonstrating that Elks Care and Elks Share.

What it reported doing in 2025

Operates under the Lodge System for the exclusive benefit of the members

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 67% for direct work, and 33% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 59
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 60

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: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -54.5%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 10.94; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.36; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 32.1% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.6% per year; rating input score 0; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.