Vets for Economic Freedom Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
453593119
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Arlington, VA, USA
Phone
7032243200
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Military, Veterans' Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,522,135
Expenses
$3,484,612
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAE PAK (PRESIDENT & COO)
  • MARK LUCAS (PRESIDENT & EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JOSEPH GECAN (VICE PRESIDENT (STRATEGY))
  • PETER HEGSETH (former ceo)

Highest reported compensation

  • JAE PAK (PRESIDENT & COO): $300,094 total reported compensation
  • JOSEPH GECAN (VICE PRESIDENT (STRATEGY)): $198,065 total reported compensation
  • FRED FORD (GENERAL COUNSEL): $192,921 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to advocate for policies that will preserve the freedom and liberty that veterans and their families so proudly fought and sacrificed to defend.

What it reported doing in 2016

Concerned veterans for america translated the experience, concerns, and hopes of veterans and their families into a common vision of liberty and freedom. We provided a new and unique perspective on the issues that threaten to cripple not only our economic and national security, but the spirit of opportunity and liberty that we fought to defend and all americans cherish. We brought that fresh perspective to the american people and our leaders through a variety of activities such as rallies, advocacy, educational material, web content and media appearances, both directly and by training, equipping, and empowering citizen activists to the same.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 94% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 19
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.8%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 86.4%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 94.6%; rating input score 95; 27th 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; 64th 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: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.1%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 47.2%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.8% of revenue deployed · 86.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 1 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $300K · 12 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $511K reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 31 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.