National Society Daughters of the British Empire
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 300316122
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2014, Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- Gladstone, MO, USA
- Phone
- 8167280626
- Rating
- 73
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Fund Raising and Fund Distribution
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $79,502
- Expenses
- $73,343
- Assets
- $143,622
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- LYNDA KRUPPA (PRESIDENT)
- ROSALYN PEARSON (1ST VICE-PRESIDENT)
- PATTIE UNDERWOOD (2ND VICE-PRESIDENT)
- MELISSA HIGGS (3RD VICE-PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- LYNDA KRUPPA (PRESIDENT)
- ROSALYN PEARSON (1ST VICE-PRESIDENT)
- PATTIE UNDERWOOD (2ND VICE-PRESIDENT)
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
The organization's primary exempt purpose shall be charity, primary support of the district homes established by the organization. Other 501 ( c ) 3 organizations may be supported as outlined in the bylaws.
What it reported doing in 2025
The national society holds an annual convention to promote closer relationship between english speakng people.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 93% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 72
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 60
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 69.6%; rating input score 70
- Program expense ratio: 73.6%; rating input score 74
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 7.7%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.96; rating input score 65; 65th 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: -4.6% per year; rating input score 0; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -2.9% per year; rating input score 0; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 69.6% of revenue deployed · 73.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $54K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 12 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.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.