Nevada Test Site Historical

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
880392763
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Las Vegas, NV, USA
Phone
7024097366
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Museum, Museum Activities

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,690,656
Expenses
$2,189,231
Assets
$3,126,342
Liabilities
$331,930

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MELISSA JAMVOLD (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • MELISSA JAMVOLD (CEO): $131,538 total reported compensation
  • JOSEPH KENT (DEPUTY DIREC): $107,475 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 mission of the Nevada test site historical foundation is to preserve and foster public accessibility to the history association with the Nevada test site and the nation's nuclear weapons testing program. The Nevada test site historical foundation promotes and supports cultural, educational, and scientific programming to encourage the development and public exchange of view regarding the Nevada test site and its impact on the nation.

What it reported doing in 2025

The operation of a museum to preserve, consolidate and make accessible to the public historical and archival records, films, photographs, testing and archeological artifacts associated with the Nevada test site. Hosting educational programs, guest lectures, and book signings for the purpose of raising awareness of the Nevada test site and the nation's nuclear weapons testing room.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 60.1%; rating input score 60
  • Program expense ratio: 67.4%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 18.6%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.43; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.9%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 60.1% of revenue deployed · 67.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 22 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $132K · 24 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 32/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.