National Desert Storm War Memorial Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
371647413
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
5162790319
Rating
49
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,714,655
Expenses
$577,679
Assets
$46,204,484
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SCOTT C STUMP (President & CEO)
  • CEE FREEMAN (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • SCOTT C STUMP (President & CEO): $258,446 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of ndswma is to establish a commerorative work on federal land in the district of columbia to honor those who, as members of the armed forces, served on active duty in support of operation desert storm or operation desert shield

What it reported doing in 2025

The mission of ndswma is to establish a commemorative work on federal land in the district of columbia to honor those who, as members of the armed forces, served on active duty in support of operation desert storm or operation desert shield

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 93% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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.

The verdict

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 35
  • Transparency & Controls: 41
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 87
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 11%; rating input score 11
  • Program expense ratio: 87.2%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 7th 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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 89.9%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 79.98; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 44.7%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.7% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.8% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 11% of revenue deployed · 87.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $504K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $258K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 11/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.