National Museum of Americans in Wartime

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200008915
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Bristow, VA, USA
Phone
7034594399
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
History Museums

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$152,535
Expenses
$428,001
Assets
$27,093,726
Liabilities
$63,742

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dennis Brant (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Dennis Brant (CEO): $185,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

A museum honoring Americans who served in battle and on the home front in the 20th Century

What it reported doing in 2024

The Oral History Project is also referred to as the Voices of Freedom Project. This project provides Veterans of Wartime and those serving on The Home Front an opportunity to record and preserve their stories. Stories are captured on video and a copy is provided to the Veteran. Additionally, a copy is provided to the Library of Congress Veterans History Project.WHEN THE MUSEUMS FACILITY OPENS, VARIOUS ADDITIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS WILL BE OFFERED. ONE PROGRAM WILL FOCUS ON EDUCATING YOUNG VISITORS ABOUT HOW THE COURAGE AND SACRIFICE OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS HAVE MADE THEIR OWN LIVES POSSIBLE. ADULT EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS WILL INCLUDE WORKSHOPS, LECTURES AND ROUNDTABLES ON DIVERSE TOPICS ABOUT THE AMERICAN WARTIME EXPERIENCE. THE MUSEUM HAS A FORMAL PARTNERSHIP WITH GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY, WHICH WILL APPLY THE RESOURCES OF GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITYS HIGHLY REGARDED DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY AND ART HISTORY AS WELL AS ITS CENTER FOR HISTORY AND THE NEWS MEDIA TO THE MUSEUMS EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 84% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.8%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 31.4%; rating input score 31
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.11 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd 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: 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -180.6%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 63.3; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 43.2%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -26.3% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.8% of revenue deployed · 31.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $134K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $185K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.