Ncdmm
Legal name: National Center for Defense Manufacturing and Machining
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 760727663
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Johnstown, PA, United States
- Phone
- 724-539-8811
- Rating
- 72
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Engineering and Technology
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $119,433,940
- Expenses
- $119,847,958
- Assets
- $31,646,647
- Liabilities
- $29,458,116
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
25 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- GARY FLEEGLE (PRESIDENT & CEO)
- JOHN WILCZYNSKI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AM)
Highest reported compensation
- DEAN L BARTLES PHD FSME FAS (CHAIR): $1,156,006 total reported compensation
- GARY FLEEGLE (PRESIDENT & CEO): $735,311 total reported compensation
- GENE D BERKEBILE (SECRETARY/TREASURER/VP/CFO): $558,195 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To revitalize and deliver innovative collaborative solutions for our nation's manufacturing industry, ensuring the U.S. warfighter always has a superior advantage.
What it reported doing in 2024
Assistance to united states organizations in maintaining a technological superiority in defense systems through the use of cost-effective machining and manufacturing processes, training, and technology implementation.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 94% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 86
- Transparency & Controls: 75
- Accountability: 47
- Sustainability: 16
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 97.1%; rating input score 97
- Program expense ratio: 96.7%; rating input score 97
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 25%; rating input score 25; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -0.3%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.26; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.93; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.1%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 12.6% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 13.1% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 97.1% of revenue deployed · 96.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 1 of 4 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $115.9M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $1.2M · 25 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $17.3M reported
- Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 27 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 9 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.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 25/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 25/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.