River City Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 614
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 371463479
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Louisville, KY, USA
- Phone
- 5029680117
- Rating
- 61
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Professional Societies, Associations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,017,199
- Expenses
- $872,715
- Assets
- $1,250,690
- Liabilities
- $10,077
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- John M Ramsey (President)
- Matt Butler (Vice President)
Highest reported compensation
- John M Ramsey (President): $13,000 total reported compensation
- John Keeling (Recording Secretary): $4,600 total reported compensation
- Brandon Lincoln (Treasurer): $4,600 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Organizations Mission or Most Significant Activities missions consists of negotiating a collective bargaining contract on behalf of members, providing labor relations, reviewing grievances, providing legal representation, and other benefits to members.
What it reported doing in 2025
To represent Louisville police officers in collective bargaining agreement negotiations, provide benefits to members including a legal defense plan for all participants, life insurance for retired members and provide a safe environment for members to escape the pressures of being first responders.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Membership-supported. 85% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 51
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 68
- Sustainability: 60
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 54.5%; rating input score 55
- Program expense ratio: 62.1%; rating input score 62
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 42%; rating input score 42; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- 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 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 14.2%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.43; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.1%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -4.6% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 54.5% of revenue deployed · 62.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 31 of 31 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $542K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $13K · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2012 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
- 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 55/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 42/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.