Military Retirees Club of Richmond Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237427721
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2022
Location
Richmond, VA, USA
Phone
8043213188
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$265,616
Expenses
$229,445
Assets
$268,165
Liabilities
$120,472

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • EARL REID (President)

People named in this filing

  • EARL REID (President)
  • CHARLES BARKER (Director)
  • PHILLIP BRANDON (Director)

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 provide programs for veterans and the community.

What it reported doing in 2024

The achievement for the exempt purpose of operating a Club house to serve as a medium for friendship and comradery among retiree members of the Armed Forces; without regard to national origin, creed, race, or color was accomplished through the donation of time, service, or monetary contributions. The organization continued to make repairs to the facility, internally and externally. It honored its members during Birthday celebrations. The MRC planned programs to honor deceased members, attend funerals at their respected churches, participated in celebration, displayed their pictures outside of the building and hung a tribute scroll of deceased members on its Wall of Fame. The Club hosted its second annual Fundraising Gala on April 15, 2024. Col Henry R Barnes III, Director of Logistic Fort Lee Va., was keynote speaker. In attendance were several, Local Nonprofit Organizations Veterans of War, (VFW), Representatives for Suicide Prevention, and several other organizations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.9%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 67%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: 13.6%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.17; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.45; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 57.2% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 31.5% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.9% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.9% of revenue deployed · 67% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 50 of 50 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $154K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.