Concerns of Police Survivors Arizona (Cops Arizona)

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
860903179
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2010, Form 990-N 2007
Location
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Phone
6024487600
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$352,365
Expenses
$258,533
Assets
$997,344
Liabilities
$5,625

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMES W WARRINER (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
  • BETH COLEMAN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MARIE DRYER-KIRCHER (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • BRANT BENHAM MAJOR (VP AGENCY LIAISON)
  • JAMES W WARRINER (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
  • LISA WARGO (VP OF TRUSTEES & VOLUNTEER)

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

Provide resources to assist in the rebuilding of lives of surviving families and affected co-workers of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty as determined by federal criteria. Furthermore, c.o.p.s. Provides training to law enforcement (see schedule o) agencies on survivor victimization issues and educates the public of the need to support the law enforcement profession and its survivors.we are committed to honoring the fallen by rebuilding, educating, and supporting law enforcement survivors and agencies with excellence, integrity, and compassion.

What it reported doing in 2024

Provide support to survivors (widows, fathers, mothers, siblings, children, co-workers) to attend national police week in Washington dc alongside board members from the organization and local events sponsored by the national chapter.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 92% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 59% for direct work, and 41% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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: 47
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 44.1%; rating input score 44
  • Program expense ratio: 59.2%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.85 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 91.6%; rating input score 92; 53rd 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: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 26.6%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.86; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.8% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.4% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 44.1% of revenue deployed · 59.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $153K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 44/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 26/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.