Vfw Post #540 C/o Melissa Spangler

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
362522127
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017, Form 990-EZ 2014, Form 990-N 2011
Location
Dixon, IL, USA
Phone
8152885165
Rating
51
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Military, Veterans' Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$443,995
Expenses
$227,536
Assets
$406,820
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

People named in this filing

  • TOM BUSHMAN (CHAPLAIN)
  • TERRY BERNHARDT (JUDGE ADVOCATE)
  • CHARLES LANGELE (SURGEON)

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 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide a place of leisure and recreation for retired war veterans

What it reported doing in 2017

Raise money to support the vfw other local nonprofit organizations

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 100% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 16
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 79
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 13.6%; rating input score 14
  • Program expense ratio: 26.5%; rating input score 26
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 80%; rating input score 80; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 48.8%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.79; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 36.9% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 39.2% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 13.6% of revenue deployed · 26.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $60K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 19 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2015 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 14/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 26/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.