Amphibious Forces Memorial Museum Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
542152795
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Phone
5412265427
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Museum, Museum Activities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$83,445
Expenses
$72,647
Assets
$490,239
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RICK L HOLMES (PRESIDENT)
  • RICHARD LOVELL (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • JERRY GILMARTIN (DIRECTOR)
  • STEVE ADAMS (DIRECTOR)
  • ROBERT E WRIGHT Jr (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

To preserve the history of the amphibious forces in wwii, korea, and vietnam. To educate the public on the rich naval maritime heritage that the amphibious forces played in our nations history. Preserving the historic naval ships used in this role for future generations

What it reported doing in 2025

4(c) to serve as a resource on the topics of of amphibious warfare, world war ii, shipyards, post-war use, our ship its artifacts, and the men who served on them. : (1) to educational and governmental institutions, on the topics mentioned above. A recent example was assisting a maritime archeological group through the united kingdom hydrographic office in their attempt to locate an lci sunk off the beaches of normandy in 1944. This assistance included providing shipbuilding plans for this specific lci type as well as reviewing underwater photographs of wreckage to assist in determining identity. (2) to authors, historians and researchers. Services in the past have included specific ship or operational information, photograph rs, personnel records, proofreading, and translation of information from a military reporting format to one that is more undersandable for modern civilian useage (3) to the general public who are interested in geniological studies of their ancestors. Within the preceding twelve months, we have assisted twenty-seven citizens researching their ancestors who were in the us navy or marine corps. For those seeking in more information, suggestions for further study as well as instructions on how to acquire the information efficiently are provided. To achieve this, we have a resident historian who gathers and maintains a vast resource of information and photos that is available to those mentioned above.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.9%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 98.7%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 19th 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: 12.9%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.75; rating input score 57; 57th 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: -0.9% per year; rating input score 0; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.9% of revenue deployed · 98.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $72K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 15 of 16 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.