Indian Gaming Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521834892
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2025467711
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,816,047
Expenses
$9,001,289
Assets
$9,796,867
Liabilities
$6,809,142

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

Leadership & pay

28 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JASON C GILES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • MARK VAN NORMAN (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JASON C GILES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $374,307 total reported compensation
  • ERNEST STEVENS JR (CHAIRMAN): $356,994 total reported compensation
  • DANIELLE HER MANY HORSES (DEPUTY DIRECTOR): $316,185 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 mission of iga is to protect and preserve the general welfare of tribes striving for self-sufficiency through gaming enterprises in indian country. To fulfill its mission, iga works with the federal government and congress to develop sound policies and practices and to provide technical assistance and advocacy on gaming-related issues. In addition, iga seeks to maintain and protect indian sovereign governmental authority in indian country.

What it reported doing in 2024

Iga gathers information on gaming-related issues, tribal sovereignty and economic development in indian country and makes it available to its members in publications, videos, recordings and on the internet. Iga produces literature for broadcast to other media sources on these same issues. Iga maintains a library and reference center for use by its members.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 72% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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 the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.1%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 71.7%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th 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: 31%; rating input score 31; 13th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: -2.1%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.09; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.7; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.7%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.1% of revenue deployed · 71.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $6.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $374K · 28 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $2M reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Whistleblower policy not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.