American Legion Post 362

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
381250505
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Coloma, MI, USA
Phone
2694685501
Rating
32
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Military, Veterans' Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$78,831
Expenses
$100,816
Assets
$209,846
Liabilities
$1,371

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

People named in this filing

  • RICH KELEMEN (COMMANDER)
  • EARL BROWERS (1ST VICE COM)
  • GLENN OPENNEER (ADJUTANT)

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 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To assist in carrying out the general purpose of the legion and to maintain a post home for meetings and recreation

What it reported doing in 2017

Various special events have been successful in assisting to maintain the post home and all legion activities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 62% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. 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: 6
  • Sustainability: 38
  • 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; 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 9th 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: -27.9%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.08; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.2% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.6% per year; rating input score 0; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -7.4% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 165 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2012 to 2017
  • 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: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 33/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.