Natl Org of Black Law Enforc Exec

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521497588
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Capitol Heights, MD, USA
Phone
3015186393
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$64,688
Expenses
$75,515
Assets
$60,570
Liabilities
$352

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRIAN HARRIS (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
  • SHARON DUNCAN (PRESIDENT)
  • THEODORE MORDECAI (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • BRIAN HARRIS (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
  • SHARON DUNCAN (PRESIDENT)
  • SHARON M BROWN (TREASURER)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Develop, sponsor, and support community services which help to build and strengthen communities

What it reported doing in 2025

NOBLE WASHINGTON METRO DEMONSTRATED ITS EMPHASIS ON SERVICE, SAFETY, AND MAKING A MEANINGFUL LOCAL IMPACT. NOBLE Washington Metro coordinated a Build-A-Bike Program and built 100 bicycles for children in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia region. NOBLE Washington Metro also coordinated a Back-to-School drive and a Christmas Toy Drive. School supplies were distributed to children at Stanton Elementary School and every child at Plummer Elementary School received a Christmas gift.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 41
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.2%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 39%; rating input score 39
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.63 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: -16.7%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.8; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 47.2% of revenue deployed · 39% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $29K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 47/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.