Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510207315
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
7035193846
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,015,865
Expenses
$951,845
Assets
$2,284,682
Liabilities
$1,051,856

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

28 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CMSgt Joshua Baker (President)
  • SFC Mireya Cruz (Vice President)
  • MSgt Ret Daniel Reilly (Past President)
  • CSM Ret John D Gipe (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • CSM Ret John D Gipe (Executive Director): $65,519 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote the interests and maintain the professionalism of the enlisted members of the National Guard of the United States.

What it reported doing in 2025

Legislative: Monitor legislation affecting the enlisted members of the National Guard as well as issues related to national security in general. Provide legislative updates for the New Patriot magazine as well as a weekly online update tracking all legislation afffecting the welfare of members of the National Guard and Reserves and updates related to military issues affecting Guard service. Provide information to members and legislators regarding active legislation affecting the welfare of the members of the National Guard.

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 96% 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 - 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: 40
  • Transparency & Controls: 96
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 39.9%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 45.6%; rating input score 46
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.6 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th 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; 64th 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: 6.3%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.4; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.46; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.9%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.1% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.4% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 39.9% of revenue deployed · 45.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 26 of 26 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $434K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $66K · 28 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 18/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 46/100.