American Legion Post 71

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
756035780
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Denton, TX, USA
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$102,104
Expenses
$63,018
Assets
$549,046
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Forrest Beadle (President)
  • Bill Mulholland (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Bill McNichols (Director)
  • Mandy Williams (Director)
  • Scott Hickey (Director)

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

Programs include Child Welfare Fund, Boys State and supporting needy local veterans with food and incidental assistance.

What it reported doing in 2025

The Texas Boys State Program is the preeminent Legion Americanism program that teaches young men to get involved in our political process and the importance of governmental leadership. The SGT Arthur O. McNitzky American Legion Post 71 Denton, Texas participates in the Texas Boys State program every year. The American Legion Department of Texas has hosted this program at the University of Austin every year since 1935. Post 71s Awards Program is part of the larger American Legions Americanism programs. Post 71s Awards Program recognizes local area high school students and ROTC cadets that demonstrate academic, athletic, and community service success. Post 71 every year donates $1000.00 to the Denton County Veterans Coalitions emergency financial relief fund as a part of the American Legions Veterans and Veteran Rehabilitation Programs. The Denton County Veterans Coalition is a 501c3 charity that uses the emergency financial relief funds to provide a one-time financial assistance to a veteran in need while working to remedy the underlying problem through local and VA services and veterans benefits.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 60.7%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 98.4%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 6th 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; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • 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: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 38.3%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.71; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.9% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 60.7% of revenue deployed · 98.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 12 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 14 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.