United States Deputy Sheriffs' Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
760485830
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2021
Location
Wichita, KS, USA
Phone
3162632583
Rating
54
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$16,283,909
Expenses
$16,500,846
Assets
$3,846,041
Liabilities
$2,017,102

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JANET MICHAELS (PRESIDENT/SECRETARY)
  • DAVID HINNERS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAVID HINNERS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $231,083 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL WILLIS (LAW ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM CO): $231,083 total reported compensation
  • SAMANTHA C DAGGETT (MARKETING DIRECTOR): $130,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Law enforcement support, training, and education. Providing equipment to law enforcement agencies and financial aid to families of slain officers.

What it reported doing in 2025

Officer benefits and awareness - to educate the public about honoring law enforcement, as well as partnering with community and municipal groups to assist local law enforcement departments in crime prevention activities, encouraging collaboration between community groups and sheriff departments and encouraging citizen volunteer opportunities with local law enforcement departments. Additionally, all expenses to provide financial and economic aid to the families of officers killed in the line of duty.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 84% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 28
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 31.3%; rating input score 31
  • Program expense ratio: 30.6%; rating input score 31
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.59 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 32.8%; rating input score 33; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.3%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.23; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.52; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.6%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.9% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 31.3% of revenue deployed · 30.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $5.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $231K · 6 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $5.7M reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 38 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.