American Legion Union Park Post 242

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
596200804
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019
Location
Orlando, FL, USA
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$172,335
Expenses
$150,561
Assets
$47,882
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Mike McCrudden (Post Commander)
  • Phil Reynolds (First Vice Commander)
  • Chuck Stewart (Second 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 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

American Legion Union Park Post 242 is a mutual-aid veterans benefit and support program to benefit the physical, educational, emotional, and spiritual needs of young people.

What it reported doing in 2019

To provide a location for the members of American Legion Union Park Post 242 to use for formal business such as meeting and to use as a coordination point for community service projects. This Post is also used to host community events such as Bingo, Holiday celebrations, etc. Members also use the facility for social gathering among themselves. To celebrate and thank war veterans for their services to the USA and the sacrifices they made for the country. To provide the assitance to other local charitable organizations and to the community at large.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 96% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 89% 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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 83.3%; rating input score 83
  • 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 12.6%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.32; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.5% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 37.4% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 83.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $125K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2017 to 2019
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.