Degree of Honor

Legal name: Degree of Honor Protective Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
410216310
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2016
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Milwaukee, WI, USA
Phone
651.228.7600 or 1.800.947.5812
Rating
38
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fraternal Societies

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$23,906,377
Expenses
$23,669,568
Assets
$202,883,110
Liabilities
$196,477,789

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Lisa Flanary (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Lisa Flanary (CEO): $356,686 total reported compensation
  • Erica Oberg (CFO and Secretary Treasurer): $185,228 total reported compensation
  • Rose Marie Tetzlaff (Director of Operations and Technology): $157,544 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide financial protection and community support to its members through fraternal benefit society products and services.

What it reported doing in 2016

Honor magazine, a semi-annual publication mailed to all adult members, is our official publication in which members are encouraged to get involved in their local lodges and service clubs which provide and coordinate opportunities as volunteers to give back to their communities. Non-contractual fraternal benefits which provide for additional assistance in times of need in the form of additional death benefits in the case of an accident, scholarships and similar help.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 100% 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

REVIEW - 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: 59
  • Accountability: 83
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 20

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: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 53.6%; rating input score 54; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 77.8%; rating input score 78; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.57; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.97; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.7%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -8.7% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $357K · 13 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.6M reported
  • Consistency: 13 of 15 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2010 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 14 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.