Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943148471
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Sparks, NV, USA
Phone
7754718471
Rating
44
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$275,566
Expenses
$299,623
Assets
$82,682
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Richard Hickox (President)
  • Dan Coverley (Vice President)
  • Pamela DelPorto (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Pamela DelPorto (Executive Director): $35,297 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Nevada Sheriffs & Chiefs Association was formed in 1953 as a professional social nonprofit 501 c6 Association dedicated to the cooperation and understanding of all law enforcement agencies in the State of Nevada in order to provide law enforcement services of the highest professional quality to the citizens of the State of Nevada. NvSCA encourages fellowship between law enforcement agencies and to promote charitable and educational interests as well as compassionate and equitable public service for public safety in Nevada.

What it reported doing in 2025

October of 2025 NvSCA and the NV Chapter of the FBINAA held its annual training conference in Las Vegas. The speakers and presenters included two folks on Agency best practices for public release of information especially during critical incidents and or crisis Officer wellness presentation offered via a first hand experience by the instructor of a crisis that impacted his life discussion and leadership presentation by a well known author and leader who had the attendees participating in scenario based discussions on race religion and best practices on changing problems and reaching solutions Southern Border information and teaching on drones drugs and cartels as well as a National Security Briefing Over 100 law enforcement agency personnel inclduing agency executives attended and participated in the training which encompassed 16 hours. This conference also included separate meetings for both hosting organizations. NvSCAs meeting included speaking and presentations from technology leaders from across the country hi-lighting new and potential law enforcement related options to help secure and assist in not only officer safety but community safety. The statewide grants office provided information on the Byrne STate Crisis Intervention program that was being reviewed; NvSCAs representative to the Western NCJIS Working Group provided information and an update on what she was working on with the group which impacts all law enforcement agencies across the state and finally NvSCA members received guidance on educational opportunities through the University of NV Reno via the Criminal Justice Program Division which covered multiple in country and out of country terrorist threats to include China and the middle east. That speaker has since become a subject matter expert for NvSCA.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 67% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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.

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: 90
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 26
  • 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: 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -8.7%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.28; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.8%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 16.5% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $35K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 39 current checks pass · 9 findings to review
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2025
  • 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.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ConferencesMeetings column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLegal column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLobbying column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Travel column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.