Purple Heart Foundation

Legal name: Military Order of the Purple Heart Service Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
390983584
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2014
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2014, Form 990-N 2009
Location
Annandale, VA, USA
Phone
703-256-6139
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Military, Veterans' Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$28,426,202
Expenses
$33,572,809
Assets
$19,613,404
Liabilities
$3,118,678

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WILLIAM A WROOLIE (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JAMES D RANDLES (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • STEPHEN L RUCKMAN (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • STEPHEN L RUCKMAN (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $229,746 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Since 1957, the Purple Heart Foundation has existed to improve the quality of life for combat-wounded and honorably discharged veterans through direct assistance and access to resources that support them after their military service.

What it reported doing in 2014

Public awareness: to promote awareness that the purple heart medal is awarded only to american service men and women wounded in combat. To promote awareness that the military order of the purple heart (moph) is our nation's only veterans' service organization (vso) whose membership is comprised entirely of combat-wounded veterans. Moph provides, for free, to our nation's veterans and their families regardless of whether they are recipients of the purple heart medal.

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 97% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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: 34
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 40.7%; rating input score 41
  • Program expense ratio: 33.3%; rating input score 33
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.33 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.5%; rating input score 99; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: -18.1%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.58; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.4%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.6% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7.7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -9% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 40.7% of revenue deployed · 33.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $11.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $230K · 14 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.9M reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2010 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 38 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 39 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 33/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.