John D Wibby Post 86 American Legion

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
860307145
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Overgaard, AZ, USA
Phone
9285355266
Rating
30
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$520,354
Expenses
$541,024
Assets
$377,937
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

People named in this filing

  • STEVE HUDDLESTON (COMMANDER)
  • DENNIS REPAN (JUDGE ADVOCATE)
  • JOSE JUHAROS (CHAPLIN)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Veteran affairs

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 90% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 44% for grants, and 56% for member benefits.

The verdict

REVIEW - Program spending has grown recently. 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: 6
  • Transparency & Controls: 59
  • Accountability: 12
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 6.9%; rating input score 7
  • Program expense ratio: 6.6%; rating input score 7
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: -4%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.7; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 6.9% of revenue deployed · 6.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 483 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: Filed program service accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 7/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.