Visit Dallas
Legal name: Dallas Convention & Vistiors Bureau
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 752456622
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Dallas, TX, USA
- Phone
- 469-418-5939
- Rating
- 40
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $25,924,101
- Expenses
- $24,195,195
- Assets
- $26,341,391
- Liabilities
- $12,820,297
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
39 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- CRAIG DAVIS (President & CEO)
- MONICA PAUL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DSC)
Highest reported compensation
- CRAIG DAVIS (President & CEO): $717,924 total reported compensation
- DONALD BRAD KENT (SVP, CHIEF SALES OFFICER): $475,988 total reported compensation
- JACQUELINE RUTLEDGE-THRU 125 (CFO): $436,545 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Our mission is to market dallas globally to benefit our community andvisitors.
What it reported doing in 2024
City sales and marketing: fiscal year 2025 (fy25) was marked by significant milestones and development in dallas' future, underscoring a commitment to enhancing the city as a premier destination for business and leisure travel. It was defined by the progress of several key projects, successful partnerships and strategic efforts, most notably the announcement of fifa matches and the continuation of the kay bailey hutchison convention center master plan, which will change dallas' urban landscape for decades to come. A key component of the master plan is the development of a new convention center that will provide an integrated vertical footprint, enhanced spaces and a redeveloped convention district. To accommodate construction, a portion of the center closed in july 2025. The visit dallas team has successfully booked 68 definite conventions in the new convention center, representing $1.75 billion in future economic impact for 2029 and beyond. This enthusiasm underscores the strong demand for dallas as a convention destination.in fy25, visit dallas booked 1.3 million room nights for a total economic impact of $1.55 billion. The team booked 1,400 events, including 19 citywides. In fy25, visit dallas continued to build on the success of its national leisure and trade campaign, cause we can, further amplifying the citys maverick, can-do spirit through targeted, high-impact media placements. Guided by the smari market potential model, the campaign maintained a strong presence in key regional drive and fly markets while strategically expanding into larger national dmas to maximize return on investment. This years results underscore the strength and continued momentum of the cause we can campaign. Visit dallas achieved record-setting efficiency with a $0.06 cost per aware householddown from $0.19 in fy24 and $0.26 in fy23. Expansion into larger markets has continued to yield strong returns, as these visitors tend to stay longer and spend more. The overall direct impact of paid media increased by more than 60% to $307 million, driving 526,000 influenced room nightsup from 382,000 from last fiscal year and generating a remarkable roi of $159:1, up from $148:1 the previous year.another exciting development is the continuation of dallas involvement in the michelin guide Texas. The michelin guide is the gold standard in culinary tourism, and dallas inclusion will elevate the citys vibrant culinary scene, diverse offerings, and world-class chef community. This recognition positions dallas as a premier dining destination alongside austin, fort worth, houston, and san antonio.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 75% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and revenue has grown recently. 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: 51
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 43
- 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: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
- 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: 9 of 9 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: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 6.7%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.09; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.49; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 17.3%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 25 of 25 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $718K · 39 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.2M reported
- Consistency: 15 of 16 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 13 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.