Army West Point Athletic Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474457035
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
West Point, NY, USA
Phone
8459387810
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,719,506
Expenses
$5,111,794
Assets
$11,945,742
Liabilities
$7,083,696

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • eugene Corrigan (President and COO)
  • Jodie K Glore (President thru 5/1/17)

Highest reported compensation

  • eugene Corrigan (President and COO): $290,870 total reported compensation
  • robert Beretta (Secretary): $129,201 total reported compensation
  • Stephanie Menio (Secretary thru 5/1/17): $106,607 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide services necessary to provide an extraordinary Division I athletic experience that develops leaders of character committed to the values of Duty, Honor, and Country.

What it reported doing in 2016

- Assumed responsibility for coaching, sports involvement, recruiting, logistics, ticketing and administration forthe United States Military Academy's Division I intercollegiate athletics- Transitioned oversight of approximately 1,200 cadet athletics across the entire intercollegiate athletic program- Renegotiated third party sponsorship, media rights and vendor agreements- Conducted sports camps and clinics during the summer of 2017.

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.

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: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 81
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 45.5%; rating input score 46
  • Program expense ratio: 86.5%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $50.11 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 47.4%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.34; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.59; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.1%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 200% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 180.4% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 180.7% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 45.5% of revenue deployed · 86.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $291K · 10 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $128K reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2015 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 46/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.