Signal 30 Troopers Benefit Fund Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
204062957
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Latham, NY, USA
Phone
5183137010
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,628,888
Expenses
$1,629,726
Assets
$10,698,649
Liabilities
$95,165

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GORDON WARNOCK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ROSS PISCITELLI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • ADAM SILVER (DIRECTOR)
  • CARMINE DECRESCENTE JR (CHAIRMAN)
  • GORDON WARNOCK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

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

The fund was designed to foster, encourage, and support careers in law enforcement by: (a)providing support to help and assist the families of law enforcement professionals in times of financial emergency caused by accident, acts of god, natural disasters, floods, storms, illness, hospitalization, medical bills and other unforseen events that cause financial distress for the families law enforcement personnel; (b) providing financial aid, support and assistance to worthy programs which enhance the career field of law enforcement; (c) providing financial aid, support and assistance to public educational programs which enhance law enforcement and careers in law enforcement;(d) establishing and funding scholarships for the families of law enforcement professionals who are pursuing degrees in higher education.

What it reported doing in 2024

The fund was designed to foster, encourage, and support careers in law enforcement by: (a) providing scholarships, grants and other forms of financial assistance to worthy students seeking education to pursue and further careers in law enforcement;(b)providing support to help and assist the families of law enforcement professionals in times of financial emergency caused by accident, acts of god, natural disasters, floods, storms, illness, hospitalization, medical bills and other unforseen events that cause financial distress for the families law enforcement personnel; (c) providing financial aid, support and assistance to worthy programs which enhance the career field of law enforcement; (d) providing financial aid, support and assistance to public educational programs which enhance law enforcement and careers in law enforcement;(e) establishing and funding scholarships for the families of law enforcement professionals who are pursuing degrees in higher education.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 75% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 88
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.2%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 59.8%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.33 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 91.3%; rating input score 91; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 38%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.56; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 47.2% of revenue deployed · 59.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $975K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 34 of 36 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 14 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 47/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.