Vineland Lodge No 434 Loyal Order of Moose

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237138621
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Vineland, NJ, USA
Phone
8566925052
Rating
19
Verdict
AVOID
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,467
Expenses
$20,820
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

People named in this filing

  • TOM JONES (ADMINISTRATOR)
  • RAY L VAUGHN (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 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To support mooseheart, moosehaven and moose charities endeavers.

What it reported doing in 2020

Vineland lodge merged with millville lodge

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 filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

AVOID - The strongest available result is that the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 57
  • Accountability: 6
  • Sustainability: 11
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: Limited
  • 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: -743.9%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 24 current checks pass · 4 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Advertising column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Travel column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.