Central Gwinnett Veterans Association Incorporated

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
900495985
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Lawrenceville, GA, USA
Phone
7709638767
Rating
48
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$132,686
Expenses
$116,013
Assets
$665,256
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

People named in this filing

  • HENRY WATERS (COMMANDER)
  • CAROL YATES (SR VICE COMM)
  • DALE HOLDER (JR VICE COMM)

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 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The primary purpose of this organization is to promote americanism, defined as an unfailing love of country; loyality to its' institutions and ideals; eagerness to defend it against enemies; undivided allegiance to the flag; and a desire to secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and posterity. The organization operates for the following purposes: 1. To promote the social welfare of the community (that is, to promote in some way the common good and general welfare of the people of the community). 2. To assist disabled and needy war veterans and members of the u. S. Armed forces and their dependents and the widows and orphans of deceased veterans. 3. To provide entertainment, care and assistance to hospitalized veterans of members of the u. S. Armed forces. 4. To carry on programs to perpetuate the memory of deceased veterans and members of the armed forces and to comfort their survivors. 5. To conduct programs for religious, charitable, scientific, literary or educational purposes.

What it reported doing in 2020

Support of the national vfw in support of all veterans support of local post 5255 located in lawrenceville, ga for support of local veterans and the local community

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 13
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 15.4%; rating input score 15
  • Program expense ratio: 13.2%; rating input score 13
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 77.2%; rating input score 77; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.6%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.73; rating input score 78; 78th 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: -28.1% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 15.4% of revenue deployed · 13.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 200 of 200 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2016 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 15/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.