Minnesota Patriot Guard

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205495808
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Bloomington, MN, USA
Phone
6516539527
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities

Reported finances

Revenue
$19,992
Expenses
$17,079
Assets
$136,892
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARK LEA (PRESIDENT)
  • GLENN SEABERG (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • KARLA RICHARDSON (DIRECTOR/ASST STATE CAPTAI)
  • MARK LEA (PRESIDENT)
  • CRAIG UGLAND (DIRECTOR/ STATE RIDE CAPTA)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our primary mission is to attend the funeral services of fallen american heroes as invited guests of the family. We do this to accomplish the following: show respect and honor to our fallen heroes, support families and their communities, and ensure an atmosphere of dignity and respect for those in mourning.other missions undertaken by the Minnesota patriot guard include: honor missions for veterans as requested by families, visits to va medical centers and Minnesota state veterans homes, welcome home and deployment sendoff missions, and special missions requested by veterans organizations.

What it reported doing in 2025

The main mission of the Minnesota patriot guard is to show sincere honor and respect to the soldiers who have given their life in service to the united states of america. A multitude of both motorcyclists and non-motorcyclists from diverse backgrounds attend the funerals of fallen soldiers and vets.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 85% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 96% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 72
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.6%; rating input score 49
  • Program expense ratio: 56.9%; rating input score 57

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 14.6%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.02; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -11.3% per year; rating input score 0; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -10.5% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.4% per year; rating input score 0; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.6% of revenue deployed · 56.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 4 filed program accomplishments · $10K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 49/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.