American Legion Post 166

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
576036366
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2022
Forms available
Form 990 2022
Location
Goose Creek, SC, USA
Rating
47
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$413,451
Expenses
$417,364
Assets
$237,166
Liabilities
$52,198

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

People named in this filing

  • John Nance (Segant Arms)
  • Dean Nimocks (Cammander)
  • Derrel Morgan (Judge Advocate)

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 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To help Veterns

What it reported doing in 2022

To establish a meeting place for retired vets and families and to increase the awarness of the community that our veterens have given to our country.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 84% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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: 100
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 40

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: 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: 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: -0.9%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.57; rating input score 25; 25th 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: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2012 to 2022
  • 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: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 39/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.