American Legion Post 757

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
346550655
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chillicothe, OH, USA
Phone
7407756933
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Military, Veterans' Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$240,049
Expenses
$212,922
Assets
$543,200
Liabilities
$1,697

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

People named in this filing

  • DEAN RAMSEY (COMMANDER)
  • CASEY ENGLISH (1ST VICE PRES)
  • MICHAEL METZGER (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Benefit veteran programs

What it reported doing in 2024

Provided veteran programs

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 83% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 46% for direct work, 54% for grants, and 0% for member benefits.

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 liabilities are high compared with assets.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.8%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 94.7%; rating input score 95
  • 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11.3%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.55; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 28.2% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 51.4% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 25.3% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.8% of revenue deployed · 94.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $202K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.