Kappa Lambda Chi Military Fraternity Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 463375471
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2016–2023
- Forms available
- Form 990 2023, Form 990-EZ 2015, Form 990-N 2014
- Location
- Evans, GA, USA
- Phone
- 6789748634
- Rating
- 61
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Public, Society Benefit N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $365,078
- Expenses
- $379,999
- Assets
- $384,951
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- BERNARD JOHNSON (PRESIDENT AND CEO)
- SHANNON LEE (VICE PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- ZACHARY WYATT II (CO-FOUNDER)
- WILLIAM DICKEY (CO-FOUNDER)
- JAMES JACKSON (CO-FOUNDER)
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 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Formed as an alternative to traditional organizations for male service members, we offer membership in a greek-letter military fraternity that is second to none! Through our local chapters we aspire to unite male service members of all branches of the united states armed fraternity that is second to none. Through our local chapters, we aspire to unite male service members of all branches of the united states armed forces. Local chapters meet locally twice per month, and once nationally during our "retreat". The first meeting of every month is business-related & the second meeting is social. During our annual retreat, fraternity members from across the globe are invited to unite in the name of brotherhood.
What it reported doing in 2023
The organization gives back to the community by performing community service of all kinds, from helping serve food to the homeless to cleaning playgrounds for kids to play.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 84% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 70% for direct work, and 30% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and 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: 44
- Transparency & Controls: 74
- Accountability: 82
- Sustainability: 45
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 44.9%; rating input score 45
- Program expense ratio: 43%; rating input score 43
- Fundraising efficiency: $11.22 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 54.6%; rating input score 55; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- 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: -4.1%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.01; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -5.9% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 15.8% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 44.9% of revenue deployed · 43% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $164K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
- Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2023
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 3 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 45/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 43/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 55/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 43/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.