American Legion Auxiliary Department of Colorado

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
840004975
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
3033675388
Rating
57
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$271,669
Expenses
$225,241
Assets
$477,620
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Janelle Mendelson (Immediate Past President)
  • Casey Rigerman (President)
  • Shelley McLatchie (President Elect)
  • Ashley Flores (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Theresa Rose Lena (Secretary Treasurer): $31,200 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The American Legion Auxiliary is dedicated to supporting the mission of The American Legion by honoring and serving veterans their families and our communities. We advocate for veterans educate citizens mentor youth and promote patriotism responsible citizenship peace and security.

What it reported doing in 2024

The American Legion Auxiliary proudly supports facilities within the Veterans Health Administration system including VA Medical Centers and Community Living Centers across Colorado. These centers provide vital high-quality healthcare services to veterans-ranging from surgery and diagnostics to primary care and rehabilitation. Many of our veterans face financial hardship or homelessness and these facilities offer essential care support and rehabilitation resources for them and their families. The ALA contributes to this mission through monetary and in-kind donations as well as volunteer service. Members dedicate countless hours assisting at front desks serving as Red Coat Ambassadors and supporting patient and visitor needs. In addition the American Legion Auxiliary supports the Fisher House in Aurora Colorado. The Fisher House provides a home away from home for veterans and their families while a loved one receives medical care at the VA hospital or an approved facility. This program honors the sacrifices of our service members and strives to meet humanitarian needs beyond those provided by the VA.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Multi-channel. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 22% for direct work, 47% for grants, 24% for affiliated organizations, and 7% for member benefits.

The verdict

MIXED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 16
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.8%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 93.8%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 17.1%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.12; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.9%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.3% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.8% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.8% of revenue deployed · 93.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 4532 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 7 filed program accomplishments · $90K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $31K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 40 of 41 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.