International Association of Gaming Advisors

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
880166431
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Las Vegas, NV, USA
Phone
7023541057
Rating
40
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,016,428
Expenses
$982,642
Assets
$377,541
Liabilities
$103,980

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

Leadership & pay

32 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HARPER KO (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • KIRSTEN CLARK (EXECUTIVE DI): $223,933 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Since it was incorporated on may 27, 1980 as a nonprofit corporation in the state of Nevada, the international association of gaming advisors ("iaga") has provided a relevant, collaborative forum for discussing key issues that affect global gaming today. Supported by a membership that includes the industry's leading attorneys, senior executives, financial advisors, regulators, consultants and academics, its purpose is to connect expert advisors through shared experiences and education to influence the advancement of global gaming. To accomplish this, iaga hosts numerous conferences and special events each year where attendees participate in rich discussion about industry topics and trends, benefit from valuable networking opportunities and gain vital education. Iaga is funded primarily through sponsorships, membership dues and professional development and member service conferences.

What it reported doing in 2024

Iaga holds an annual conference and sponsors other events to communicate issues affecting the gaming industry and to provide continuing legal education for its members relating to gaming laws and procedures.

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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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: 74
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 40

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; 63rd 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 96.9%; rating input score 97; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.3%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.38; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.28; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.8%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.1% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 31 of 32 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $224K · 32 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $224K reported
  • Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.