Kansas City Lodge 10 Loyal Order Of

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
440532108
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Sugar Creek, MO, USA
Phone
8162176745
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$109,909
Expenses
$121,270
Assets
$249,702
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JEREMY TWEEDY (PRESIDENT)
  • JAMES SWIGART (JR PAST PRESIDENT)
  • MARK SWIGGART (JR PAST PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • LARRY BRAMLETT (TRUSTEE)
  • MARK ODOWD (TRUSTEE)
  • KARLA BRAMLETT (CHAPLAIN)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Fraternity benevolence and charity

What it reported doing in 2024

Communites supported included mooseheart/moosehaen, veterans, Missouri patriot express, maywood terrace living center, salvation army, bryant elementary school, sugar creek elementary school, abraham mallinson elementary, various veterans posts, moose legion, red racks, higginsville veterans cemetary, groves nursing home, sugar creek fire and police departments, other kc moose lodges, citizens relief committee food pantry, metropolitan organization to counter sexual assault (mosca), great lakes grinch busters, camp ross, b4 outdoors, various veterans, first responders and law enforecement officers, monks scholarship fund, authentic life foundation, ott school, childrens mercy hospital, fisher house, honor flight network, goar charities ride in bike show, stomp out als, alzheimers/demential benefit ride, tabithas closet, ccrc food pantry hope house, jackson county ararat shirine club and other homeless and needy individuals and organizations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Multi-channel. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 50% for direct work, 21% for grants, and 29% for member benefits.

The verdict

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 61
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.5%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 49.3%; rating input score 49
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 95.5%; rating input score 95; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -10.3%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.06; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.1% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.5% of revenue deployed · 49.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 22 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $60K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 22 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.