Arlington Convention and Visitors Bureau Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
752442465
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Arlington, TX, USA
Phone
8172657721
Rating
48
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$15,996,911
Expenses
$15,785,663
Assets
$6,678,157
Liabilities
$669,765

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

Leadership & pay

29 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRENT DERAAD (President & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRENT DERAAD (President & CEO): $480,543 total reported compensation
  • CHAD ENLOE (SVP SALES): $309,660 total reported compensation
  • WILLIAM WILSON (SVP SPORTS SALE): $269,216 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The arlington convention & visitors bureau markets and develops the city as a premier sports, business and leisure entertainment destination to achieve new tourism spending benefits for the visitor industry, community and its residents.

What it reported doing in 2024

Marketing and communications the bureaus marketing team places digital, print, cable television, outdoor and radio advertising in targeted markets encouraging potential leisure travelers (vacationers) to visit arlington. That advertising is augmented by social media posts and publicity efforts geared toward generating media editorial coverage about what arlington offers visitors. Expenses include advertising placement, advertising strategy and creative development via our ad agency (peter mayer), boosting social media posts, media hosting, and website development and hosting.our earned media value in 2024-25 was $45.9 million, 328% more than the $14 million goal.the arlington cvb generated 1.4 million unique visitors to its arlington.org website in 2024-25, which was 19% more than the 1.2 million goal.these activities collectively support increased visitor spending on lodging, food and beverage, transportation and entertainment, contributing to the overall economic vitality of the arlington community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.3%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.42; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.1%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.9% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $481K · 29 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.9M reported
  • Consistency: 14 of 15 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 16 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 9 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 39/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.