Nevada Faculty Alliance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
880274752
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
Las Vegas, NV, USA
Phone
7025304632
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$305,668
Expenses
$347,512
Assets
$545,834
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Staci Walters (President)
  • Andrew Lavengood (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Staci Walters (President): $2,250 total reported compensation
  • Joe Ray (Secretary): $1,500 total reported compensation
  • Andrew Lavengood (Vice President): $1,500 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Work for the welfare and advancement of the post-secondary public education within the state of Nevada and the improvement of instructional opportunities for students who seek post-secondary public education, including graduate and professional training.

What it reported doing in 2024

Work through lobbying, collective bargaining, and in other ways: 1- To obtain explicit guarantees of academic freedom and tenure as exemplified by the AAUP 1940 Statement of Principles of Academic Freedom and Tenure, The 1958 Statement of Procedural Standards on Faculty Dismissal Proceedings, and the 1971 Procedural Standards on the Renewal and Nonrenewal of Faculty Appointments, The 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities, The 1974 Statement, as revised in 1981, on Faculty Participation in the Selection, Evaulation, and Retention of Administrators, and Other Relevant AAUP Documents. 2- To ensure the vital participation of faculty in establishing curricula and maintaining proper professional and educational standards.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 86% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 55% for direct work, and 45% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 94.2%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 82.3%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -13.7%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.57; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.5%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 94.2% of revenue deployed · 82.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $286K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $2K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.