Army War College Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232034407
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Carlisle, PA, USA
Phone
7172431756
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Undergraduate College (4-year)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,226,193
Expenses
$3,143,077
Assets
$27,635,432
Liabilities
$52,314

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • COL RET RUTH B COLLINS (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • COL RET RUTH B COLLINS (CEO): $105,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To support educational programs of the us army war college and its graduates.

What it reported doing in 2024

The awcf academic programs supported throughout the year consisted of the following: chair of war studies, commandants reading program, deserio chair, industry day, provosts & dean programs, advanced strategic art program, carlisle scholars program, center for strategic leadership (csl) programs. Additionally, two new programs received support: eisenhower series college program and environmental security program. In this fy, we presented 17 writing awards for both resident and distance education programs graduating students, as well as u.s. Army war college fellows. Industry day was held with 25 representatives from defense companies or organizations as an educational program for future senior leaders. Funding was provided to assist in executing the basic strategic art program and the nominative leader courses. The advanced strategic art and carlisle scholars programs supported special studies for 16 selected students each. The army leader day made it possible for 25 department of army senior general officers and civilian leaders to meet with the war college students on strategic leader topics. Funding throughout the academic year provided for distinguished lecturers and electives speakers to present academic topics that otherwise would not be possible. Academic program funding supported the hosting of senior leaders, government officials, and other guests of the usawc who provided relevant and timely academic material in a variety of formats, courses, and events.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 84% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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

STRONG - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 89
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 44.5%; rating input score 45
  • Program expense ratio: 80.1%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $19.36 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 56.5%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.79; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.3%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 44.5% of revenue deployed · 80.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 23 of 23 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $105K · 24 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 45/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 58/100.