American Legion Post 335

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
351631033
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Charlestown, IN, USA
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Military, Veterans' Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$195,116
Expenses
$192,904
Assets
$44,626
Liabilities
$3,719

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Lee Duncan (Finance Officer): $16,534 total reported compensation
  • David Furman (Commander): $4,167 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

War veteran activities and promote patriotism

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 85% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 91
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 10th 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 9 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Limited
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.1%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.23; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.7%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.5% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.7% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 1 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $193K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $17K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2010 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.