United Servicemembers Action Defense Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
452450623
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2012–2013
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Management & Technical Assistance

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,025
Expenses
$2,236
Assets
$7,059

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

People named in this filing

  • ROGER HILL (CHAIRMAN/PRE)
  • H EDWARD SOYSTER (DIRECTOR)
  • KEVIN DONALESKI (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

United servicemembers action defense fund (usadf) will provide financial and counseling support to current and former members of the united states armed forces (army, navy, air force, marines and coast guard active duty and reserve personnel) who have or are currently facing adverse actions. The usadf scope may include but is not limited to informal adverse actions as rendered by a servicemember's command as well as formal administrative and united code of military justice (ucmj) adverse disciplinary action while in uniform.

What it reported doing in 2013

The organization undertook a mailing campaign to raise donations in order to serve members of the military facing adverse actions. Grants totaling 25,900 were paid to support past and current members of the military to assist them in their defense.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 100% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 44.5%; rating input score 44
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 55.5%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.16; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 44.7%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -194.7% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -182.7% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 41.4% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 44.5% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2012 to 2013
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 44/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.