Lels Police Benevolent Fund Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 831789380
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2023
- Location
- Brooklyn Center, MN, USA
- Phone
- 6512934424
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Emergency Assistance
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,642,859
- Expenses
- $1,765,790
- Assets
- $896,022
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KEVIN SONSTEBO (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- JAMES MORTENSON (DIRECTOR): $149,491 total reported compensation
- NICK JOYCE (DIRECTOR): $1,810 total reported compensation
- KEVIN SONSTEBO (PRESIDENT): $1,510 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The lels benevolent fund provides support and financial aid for the families of lels members and the families of other Minnesota public safety professionals, who are seriously injured or killed in the line of duty, regardless of their union membership.
What it reported doing in 2024
In 2024, the lels police benevolent fund provided vital support and financial assistance to the families of officers affected by tragedy. Specifically, the fund managed the administrative processes and tools necessary to collect donations for the families of the three burnsville police officers who lost their lives in the line of duty. By serving as a central hub for community contributions, the fund ensured that donations were collected and distributed efficiently and transparently. This same service was extended to the family of minneapolis police officer jamal mitchell, as well as to several other public safety families across Minnesota who were impacted by serious injury or the loss of a loved one.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 78
- Transparency & Controls: 94
- Accountability: 62
- Sustainability: 67
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 65.3%; rating input score 65
- Program expense ratio: 97.5%; rating input score 97
- Fundraising efficiency: $68.87 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 38
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Limited
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 33.2%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.51; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0.9%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 65.3% of revenue deployed · 97.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $149K · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.