Police Officers Association of the Clark County School District

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
880269404
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Las Vegas, NV, USA
Phone
7022047700
Rating
42
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Reported finances

Revenue
$224,672
Expenses
$214,581
Assets
$385,419
Liabilities
$24,921

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MATT CALDWELL (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • MATT CALDWELL (PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID BALLANTYNE (VICE PRESIDE)
  • CHASE CURI (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 police benevolent association of the clark county school district (pba) is made up of sworn Nevada police officers. It's mission is to provide members benefits and assistance in areas such as the legal defense plan, union representation, collective bargaining agreements, grievance filing and representation, unfair labor practice filing and representation, and fund raising for injured/sick officers.

What it reported doing in 2025

The police benevolent association of the clark county school district (pba) is made up of sworn Nevada police officers. All members are employed by the political subdivision of the state of Nevada known as the clark county school district. It encompasses police officers and sergeants that want to join the pba. The state of Nevada is a right to work state and membership to this association is voluntary. Only members of the association are entitled to receive benefits. Members receive an association membership card for joining our association. Non- members do not receive any benefit other than our collective bargaining agreement negotiations. The association does not charge its non-members for this service. The benefits that members receive and that are in place at this time are the following: 1. Legal defense plan; our association is a member of poran, which is the sister organization of the peace officers research association of California. As a member we are entitled to their attorneys for representation for criminal/internal affairs investigations/grievance matters. 2. Union representation during internal investigations; although the members have a right to legal representation during these investigation, the members also utilize trained executive board members to assist them during this process. 3. Collective bargaining agreements; the contract negotiations committee sits down with the ccsd representatives to attain health/welfare/work environment benefits for their members. 4. Grievance filing and representation; when a member feels that the employer violated a clause in our cba, the association will file a formal grievance for them. We will also help represent them during this process. 5. Unfair labor practice filing and representation; when our employer violates any clause within our cba, the association will file an ulp grievance with the states employee management relations board. 6. Fund raising for injured/sick officers; the association will help organize a fund raising event to help injured/sick officers in their time of need. We are also members of the clark county injured police officers fund.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 88% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
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: 81
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 20

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: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 83.7%; rating input score 84; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 4.5%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.8; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -9% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 10 of 12 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 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: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.