Fairfax County Police Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 546043690
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Fairfax, VA, US
- Phone
- (703) 278-8626
- Rating
- 54
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $751,086
- Expenses
- $825,495
- Assets
- $1,376,968
- Liabilities
- $10,281
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DANIEL CUSTER (PRESIDENT)
- JEREMY HOFFMAN (VICE PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- DANIEL CUSTER (PRESIDENT): $3,600 total reported compensation
- JEREMY HOFFMAN (VICE PRESIDENT): $3,000 total reported compensation
- CHRISTOPHER REKAS (SECRETARY): $1,200 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of the Fairfax County Police Association is to work closely with all public safety employee organizations in order to reach common goals and objectives for the men and women of the Fairfax County Police Department.
What it reported doing in 2025
Scholarships and donations: in the interest of public stewardship, the association also demonstrates a substantial commitment to promoting goodwill through community involvement and education. This can be seen in our partnerships with individual citizens, public agencies, non-profit organizations, and businesses to improve the quality of life in fairfax county. The association contributes to local charities through the year. After a written competition, scholarships are awarded to members and/or their children who are seeking assistance with college related costs. Donations are made to officers/families.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 92% 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
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: 25
- Transparency & Controls: 83
- Accountability: 82
- Sustainability: 37
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 28%; rating input score 28
- Program expense ratio: 26.1%; rating input score 26
- Fundraising efficiency: $1.55 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 81.7%; rating input score 82; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -9.9%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.67; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.7%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -7.3% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -0% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 28% of revenue deployed · 26.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $215K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $4K · 13 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $240K reported
- Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 13 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 28/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 26/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 5/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 55/100.