New York Council Navy League of the United States Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
822409006
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2128257333
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Military, Veterans' Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$582,687
Expenses
$719,880
Assets
$4,946,827
Liabilities
$18,272

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMES SPEAR (PRESIDENT)
  • COL CHARLES R BLAICH USMC RET (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • CDR EVAN D DASH USN RET (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • NADIA FAROOQ (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • NORMA MILIO (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • JAMES SPEAR (PRESIDENT)
  • COL CHARLES R BLAICH USMC RET (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • CDR EVAN D DASH USN RET (VICE PRESIDENT)

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

The mission of the New York council navy league of the united states, inc. Is to inform the american people and their government that the united states of america is a maritime nation and its national defense and economic well being are dependent upon strong sea services - us navy, us marine corps, us coast guard and the us flag merchant marine. This purpose is accomplished through: (i) education of local and national leaders and american public of the importance of strong sea services; (ii) support of the men and women of the sea services, including units, individual personnel from the active duty and reserve components and their families; and (iii) development of the next generation of leaders through youth programs.

What it reported doing in 2024

Fleet supportthe organization provides financial support to units and individual personnel of the sea services and their families. 2024 programming included: awards to sailors of the quarter/year for uscg station ny, uscg sector ny, uscg msst ny and naval talent acquisition group-empire state; hosting of events during fleet week New York; annual recognition of newly commissioned officers at usmma, suny maritime college and fordham university; financial and volunteer support for programs at local and visiting uscg, navy and marine corps commands and merchant marine educational institutions; and commissioning celebration events for uss john basilone.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 62% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 78% for direct work, and 22% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 86.5%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 80.7%; rating input score 81; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -23.5%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.87; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -12.7% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 86.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $623K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 18 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.