Los Angeles Police Reserve Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
953900093
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3106704405
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$322,847
Expenses
$219,809
Assets
$1,146,320
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Karla Ahmanson (Co-President)
  • Michael Sellars (Co-President)
  • Mark Dietch (Vice President)
  • Ashley Frandzel (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Paul Favero (Treasurer)
  • Karla Ahmanson (Co-President)
  • Michael Sellars (Co-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

Provide equipment and training to LAPD Reserve Officers not provided by the LAPD; Recruit additional Reserve Officers; Provide scholarships to LAPD Reserve Officers and or their immediate family members; Host the Annual Awards dinner to recognize outstanding LAPD Reserve Officers provide financial assistance to Reserve Officers in need.

What it reported doing in 2024

Provide for the cost of equipment and training not provided by the LAPD to existing Reserve Officers; assist new Reserve Recruits with the cost equipment required for entering the Academy if they deem it a financial hardship; subsidize the cost of a Legal Plan should the need arise during the performance of their duties; and provide financial aid to Reserve Officers experiencing financial hardships.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

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: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.9%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 82.1%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 75%; rating input score 75; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • 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: 31.9%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.22; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 21.5% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.3% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.2% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.9% of revenue deployed · 82.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $180K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 37 of 42 current checks pass · 5 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesProfFundraising column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX GrantsToDomesticIndividuals column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule G fundraiser detail did not reconcile in the filed values.