Sgt Dp Land Memorial Lodge 82 Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
582014065
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2008
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Phone
4045524568
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$197,775
Expenses
$130,227
Assets
$841,853
Liabilities
$105,154

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ALLAN FRAMPTON (PRESIDENT)
  • MIKE GOODE (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • BRITTANY RIVERA (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • ALLAN FRAMPTON (PRESIDENT)
  • MIKE GOODE (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • CHRISTOPHER SHELTON (CHAIRMAN AND TREASURER)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The fraternal order of police david p. Land lodge 82 is an organization comprised of both retired and active law enforcement personnel from the forsyth county sheriff's department, the city of cumming police department, as well as the sandy springs police department, the lawrenceville police department, the brookhaven police department, the Georgia probation officers and the george state patrol officers, all in Georgia. Our mission is to: - provide monetary support for local charitable organizations - arrange for aid to families of fallen, injured, sick, or distressed law enforcement officers through a police illness and injury fund- serve the interests of law enforcement officers at the local level, other than the above - provide legal defense support for our members through the state-run legal defense fund - participate in local community events, including an annual shop-with-a-cop program

What it reported doing in 2025

Officer injury and illness fund - arrange for aid to families of fallen, injured, sick, or distressed law enforcement officers

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 75.7%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.21 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 81%; rating input score 81; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 34.2%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.46; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -9.7% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54% of revenue deployed · 75.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 465 of 465 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $99K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 26/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.