McCann-Richards Post NO 105 of the American Legion

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
396078167
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Shullsburg, WI, USA
Phone
6082142033
Rating
36
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Military, Veterans' Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$80,686
Expenses
$30,063
Assets
$131,834
Liabilities
$9,789

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

People named in this filing

  • DANIEL WEDIGE (Commander)
  • JOHN WALKER (Adjutant)
  • KEVIN EINSWEILER (Clubroom Manager)

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

To have a setting for veterans to connect, socialize and find support

What it reported doing in 2024

Various funraising events

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 12
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 6
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 12.7%; rating input score 13
  • Program expense ratio: 15.3%; rating input score 15
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
  • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 62.7%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.39; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 12.7% of revenue deployed · 15.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $56K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • 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 13/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Fund balance restriction sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.