Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521095066
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Alexandria, VA, USA
Phone
7038071875
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,655,712
Expenses
$4,471,671
Assets
$7,663,951
Liabilities
$397,762

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jason Johnson (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jason Johnson (President): $239,768 total reported compensation
  • Carmela Stremple (Secretary/Treasurer): $163,112 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is benevolent and educational. We support and defend the law enforcement profession and those law enforcement officers who have devoted their lives to upholding the Constitution and serving the United States and its citizens while enforcing its laws. See Sch O

What it reported doing in 2025

Public Education & Media Relations: We seek to educate the public through direct mail and online campaigns about the many risks and threats to law enforcement personnel in order to build a more informed, respectful, and appreciative society by publicizing the many challenges and dangers faced by our nation's law enforcement officers. We also raise awareness of the risks to the livelihood, health, and safety of our nation's law enforcement officers and provide support and appropriate recognition for their many sacrifices. See Schedule O for continuation

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 78% for direct work, and 22% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.6%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 82.4%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.83 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th 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: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 20.9%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.71; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.3% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.6% of revenue deployed · 82.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $3.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $240K · 10 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2M reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 38/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.