Circle of Friends for American Veterans

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
541847890
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Oakton, VA, USA
Rating
41
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Military, Veterans' Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$338,759
Expenses
$339,898
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$636,615

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRIAN A HAMPTON (President)

People named in this filing

  • BRIAN A HAMPTON (President)
  • DONALD E BRIDGEMAN (BOARD MEMBER)
  • JAMES MCDONALD (BOARD MEMBER)

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 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The circle of friends for american veterans (cofav) creates awareness of the problems facing veterans, while educating the public and congress of the solutions for veterans, especially homeless veterans.

What it reported doing in 2018

The circle of friends for american veterans (cofav) creates awareness of the problems facing veterans, while educating the public and congress of the solutions for veterans, especially homeless veterans. By molding public opinion, cofav helps shape public policy. Cofav directed an ongoing earned media campaign to national, regional and local media outlets, to inform the public about the needs and solutions of veterans. News releases were directed to reporters whom staff had determined cover veterans affairs, including those with daily newspapers, wire services, radio stations, major blogs, websites, television stations and other opinion leaders.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

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: 2
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0.7%; rating input score 1
  • Program expense ratio: 0.7%; rating input score 1
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.12 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd 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: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: -0.3%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -41.6% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -13% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -23.7% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0.7% of revenue deployed · 0.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $302K reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2009 to 2018
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 1/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule G fundraiser detail did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.