Amvets Post 15

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
356046079
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Cedar Lake, IN, USA
Phone
2193749834
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Military, Veterans' Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$108,290
Expenses
$78,289
Assets
$336,411
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL MROWICKI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • HENRY COOK (COMMANDER)
  • MICHAEL MROWICKI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ROBERT HARDY (FIRST VICE)

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 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote the social welfare of the community and veteran members

What it reported doing in 2016

Providing thanksgiving food baskets to 10 families (more than 50 people together)

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 75% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 82
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59.4%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 82.2%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 77.8%; rating input score 78; 0th 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: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: 27.7%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.3; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59.4% of revenue deployed · 82.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $2K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 16 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense 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.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.