American Legion

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
042086361
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2021
Forms available
Form 990 2021
Location
Webster, MA, USA
Phone
5089439039
Rating
47
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$259,602
Expenses
$199,348
Assets
$275,700
Liabilities
$60,365

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

People named in this filing

  • RONALD HANDELSON (COMMANDER)
  • JOHN KARDAS (SR. VICE COM)
  • EMANUEL GIOURELIS (JR. VICE COM)

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 2021. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Veterans group the objective and purpose of this post is to promote the principles and policies as set forth in the national and department constitution of the american legion.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 72% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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

MIXED - 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 57
  • Growth: 60

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st 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: 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: 23.2%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.38; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.22; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -51.3% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 202 of 202 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2010 to 2021
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.