National Association of Police Organizations Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133000467
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Alexandria, VA, USA
Phone
7035490775
Rating confidence
Limited

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,460,089
Expenses
$1,760,461
Assets
$2,381,571
Liabilities
$337,368

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

Leadership & pay

47 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL MCHALE (PRESIDENT)
  • JOHN FLYNN (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • WILLIAM JOHNSON (EXEC DIRECTOR & GENERAL COUNSEL): $354,240 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL MCHALE (PRESIDENT): $20,000 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 national association of police organizations (napo) was established to unite all law enforcement organizations within the united states in order to promote and maintain federal legislation and policies most beneficial to law enforcement in general and the citizens we are sworn to protect.it is the aim of napo to stimulate mutual cooperation between law enforcement organizations and to assist in the economic, social, and professional advancement of all law enforcement officers, whether active or retired.it is the further aim of napo to educate the public concerning the methods and means of achieving more effective crime control and law enforcement so as to establish a more peaceful, tranquil, and free society for all.napo disseminates information to all member organizations and to the public regarding federal legislation and related matters which affect the interest and welfare of its member organizations, the law enforcement profession, and the public.

What it reported doing in 2024

Legislative policies and member services: the rights and interests of law enforcement officers, america's finest, have been the subject of legislative, executive and judicial action in the nation's capital, Washington, d.c., from issues of federal funding of state law enforcement and antiterrorism efforts to federal policy on employee health, pension and other benefits, the actions of congress and administration significantly impact public safety interests. These interests must be vigorously protected in light of the vital role law enforcement officers play in maintaining the peace and security of american society. This is where napo comes in. Napo has achieved a number of legislative and administrative accomplishments for its constituents. It has also defeated efforts which would have seriously undermined law enforcement interests. Highlights of past efforts include: the james zagroda 9/11 health and compensation act of 2010, the law enforcement officers safety act (right to carry legislation), the police, fire and emergency officers educational assistance act, legislation that raised funds for the public safety officers' benefit (psob) for officers killed in the line of duty. Healthcare enhancement for local public safety officers' retirees act highlights of current efforts include: increased punishment for crimes against law enforcement officers and increased officer protections, full funding for vital state and local law enforcement assistance programs through the departments of justice and homeland security, particularly the community oriented policing services (cops) hiring program, byrne justice assistance grant (byrnejag) program, and bulletproof vest partnership (bvp) grant program. Protection of officers' pension, healthcare and social security benefits: increased access to mental health treatment for individuals who come in contact with the criminal justice system and training for officers who encounter mentally ill offenders, repeal of executive order 13688 and restoration of state and local law enforcement access to military surplus equipment, officer worn body cameras.policies: protection of law enforcement interests in proposed amendments to the electronic communications privacy act, gang deterrence and prevention, support/oppose judicial and executive branch nominations based on evaluations of the nominee's merits in regards to the law enforcement community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 77% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 97.8%; rating input score 98; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -20.6%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.35; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.3%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -41.1% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 45 of 46 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $354K · 47 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 12 of 12 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.