Invisible Enemy
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 923486613
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2023–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024
- Location
- Las Vegas, NV, USA
- Phone
- 7022418264
- Rating
- 46
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Government and Public Administration
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $263,208
- Expenses
- $255,315
- Assets
- $11,946
- Liabilities
- $760
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- David Crete (President)
- Maark Penikas (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- David Crete (President)
- Maark Penikas (Vice President)
- Catherine Simon (Secretary)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Invisible Enemy, Corp is an IRC 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization that raises and manages funds to assist the current and past U.S. Military personnel and their families who have suffered from exposure to radiation and toxic materials as a result of nuclear testing at the Nevada Test and Training Range, and any and all U.S. Military personnel and their families who have suffered physical or mental health issues from exposure to radiation, toxic materials, or other elements as a result of their military service, and Department of Defense employees, its contractors, and their families who have suffered from exposure to radiation and toxic materials as a result of nuclear testing at the Nevada Test and Training Range, and Military personnel and their families as befit their service to the United State of America as determined the by Board of Trustees of this The Invisible Enemy, Corp
What it reported doing in 2025
The Invisible Enemy has devoted virtually all of its time, volunteer energy, and financial resources to educating the veterans we serve, the broader public, and elected officials about our mission: supporting U.S. military personnel and their families who have suffered serious physical and mental health consequences as a result of their service to our country.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.
- 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: 1
- Transparency & Controls: 81
- Accountability: 82
- 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: $1.12 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 3%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.05; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -100% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 35.6% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 78.4% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $221K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 31 of 33 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 6/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Fund balance restriction sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.