Las Vegas Metropolitan PD Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
880429730
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Las Vegas, NV, USA
Phone
7025884422
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Law Enforcement

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,400,174
Expenses
$7,504,104
Assets
$3,511,927
Liabilities
$717,913

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Mike Howard (President)
  • Tom Letizia (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Karen Marben (Exec Director): $189,369 total reported compensation
  • Olivia Jiranant Smith (Dir of Comm Outrea): $111,345 total reported compensation
  • Emerald Washington (Dir of Finance): $100,716 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 LVMPD Foundation raises funds for Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department to support youth and community programs, equipment and technology, and officer training.

What it reported doing in 2024

The philanthropic funds raised by the LVMPD Foundation are critical to address the budget gaps for Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department within the strategic pillars of community engagement programs and initiatives, officer training, and equipment and technology. These funds enable LVMPD to remain a world-respected public safety agency with the best-trained officers leveraging the latest technology trends. Additionally, the impactful community engagement programs focused on relationships, particularly in underserved neighborhoods, facilitate positive interactions and reduction of violent crimes in our community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 82% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.9%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 91.7%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.64 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd 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: Limited
  • 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.4%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.47; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.3%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 27.7% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 22.6% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.6% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.9% of revenue deployed · 91.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $6.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $189K · 22 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 51/100.