New Mexico Sheriff and Police Athletic League

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
850437104
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2012, Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Albuquerque, NM, USA
Phone
5052544805
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Centers, Clubs

Reported finances

Revenue
$72,355
Expenses
$63,487
Assets
$55,800
Liabilities
$113,568

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JACK A JAMES (President)
  • ROBERT PERRY (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • DANA D KOURI (Executive Dir.)
  • JOHN DENKO (Director)
  • JACK A JAMES (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Youth athletics

What it reported doing in 2014

New Mexico sheriff and pollice athletic league - 2013local pal sites in 2011: albuquerque, rio rancho, gallup, lordsburg and bloomfieldnmspal has continued its two educational programs: 1) the statewide health mentorship program which includes the "be a fit id" nutrition program and 2) the anti gang initiative coalition program, which is a prevention - intervention project.junior law enforcement academies took place in 2010. The cadets participated in crime scene investigations, pursuit driving, fitness training and other topics which all police cadets experience.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.7%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.3%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.88; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.04; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -35% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3% per year; rating input score 0; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -25% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.7% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $63K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2013 to 2014
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 4/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.