Consumer Credit Counseling Service of Southern Nevada

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
880121775
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Las Vegas, NV, USA
Phone
7023640344
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Financial Counseling

Reported finances

Revenue
$290,971
Expenses
$966,573
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHELE JOHNSON (PRESIDENT/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHELE JOHNSON (PRESIDENT/CEO): $380,342 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the agency is to promote economic security through financialy responsible behavior to all consumers. Regardless of the ability to pay.

What it reported doing in 2018

Financial literacy program: financial literacy is the cornerstone of the agency and group financial literacy classes are presented both at the agency sites and at the sites of community partners thoughout the states served. Classes and all collateral materials are provided in english and spanish. Classes include 8 hour pre purchase financial literacy class, budgeting, credit, car purchase, apartment leasing, minimal income budgeting, surviving layoffs, and a variety of other topics. Financial literacy is also provided one on one during each individual counseling session provided.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 71% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 87% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 59
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 1
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 56.3%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 86.6%; rating input score 87; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -232.2%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 39.3%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -23.8% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -21.7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -26.6% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 56.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $545K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $380K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 25 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2014 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • 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.