Fraternal Order of Police Texas State Lodge

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
752128927
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2022
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Phone
8008482088
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$278,404
Expenses
$158,195
Assets
$631,905
Liabilities
$27,038

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Clint McNear (President)
  • Karla Pruneda (Past President)
  • David Cuevas (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Ken Gardner (Nat'l Trustee)
  • Clint McNear (President)
  • Karla Pruneda (Past President)

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

The FOP exists to strive for betterment of the law enforcement profession for the individual officer and the collective membership. By improving working conditions, wages, and benefits, and by monitoring and proposing effective legislation. The FOP provides a service and benefit to the law enforcement profession and the public to which it serves.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Texas State Lodge achieves its exempt purpose by providing support and assistance to member police officers and their families. The State Lodge sponsors a State Conference for Texas members every other year and provides representatives to the National Conference as well as sponsoring events such as the State Peace Officers Memorial and luncheons for survivors of law enforcement officers. The State Lodge provides opportunities for training to its memebers and provides periodic publications for the membership. The lodge also supports member lodges and community involvement.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 63% for direct work, and 37% 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 45
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 35.7%; rating input score 36
  • Program expense ratio: 64.6%; rating input score 65
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.92 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 73.1%; rating input score 73; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 43.2%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.99; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -9.8% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 35.7% of revenue deployed · 64.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $102K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 36/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 30/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.