American Legion Post103

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
742572934
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Littleton, CO, USA
Phone
3038756433
Rating
46
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$83,795
Expenses
$71,997
Assets
$411,658
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Kenneth Olson (Commander)
  • Orlando Adelman (1st Vice Commander)
  • Gregory Kuhn (2nd Vice Commander)

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

Provide programs that support veterans and their families patriotism support youth and our community. Promote the principles of the American Legion. We support Legion and local programs for veterans children the community and emphasize Americanism activities. We provide support to the American Legion and local groups and organizations involved with improving education health and development of youth.

What it reported doing in 2025

Assist Veterans in need with mortgage rent payments utilities food and other expenses. The Post Veteran Service Officer PVSO working with Volunteers for Hospitalized Veterans V4HV located at the Colorado Veterans Hospital in Aurora CO identifies needs of hospitalized veterans and their families as well as Littleton area veterans needing assistance. Upon validation of need the PVSO prepares checks using Post funds and delivers to third-party recipients owed funds by the veteran. Food or transportation debit cards are provided directly to veterans in need. Support American Legion programs providing assistance to Legion members and other veterans and their families locally and nationally

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 76% 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: 92
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 20

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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 14.1%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.72; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -3.8% per year; rating input score 0; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $62K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 39 current checks pass · 8 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2019 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ConferencesMeetings column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX GrantsToDomesticIndividuals column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PaymentsToAffiliates column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.