American Legion Post 207

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
410998371
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Cleveland, MN, USA
Phone
5079311837
Rating
47
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$269,019
Expenses
$73,956
Assets
$383,768
Liabilities
$1,437

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

People named in this filing

  • ERIC HANSEN (CHAPLIN)
  • DENNIS HILLER (ADJUDENT)
  • ANDY QUEEN (SARGENT OF A)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide services and enjoyment to war veterans.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 94% 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: 90
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 82
  • 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; 64th 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; 64th 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: 72.5%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.19; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -23.8% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.5% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.5% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 10 of 11 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.