American Legion Hanson Cole Post 391

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
256093438
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019, Form 990-EZ 2018
Location
Fredericktown, PA, USA
Rating
51
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$74,350
Expenses
$70,150
Assets
$48,264
Liabilities
$1,578

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • David Mason (1st Vice President)
  • Paul Keruskin (2nd Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • John B Greenlee (Commander)
  • Nicholas Bofo (Adjutant)
  • David Mason (1st 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. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

American Legion Post 391 exists to serve Verterans and their families and serve the community thru patriotic remembrances.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 89% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.

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: 90
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 46
  • 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; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.6%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.69; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • 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.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.