Vegas Stronger

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
472059555
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Las Vegas, NV, USA
Phone
7025971945
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,167,769
Expenses
$4,857,329
Assets
$1,561,433
Liabilities
$2,868,897

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID MARLON (PRESIDENT)
  • MIKE ADAMS (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAVID MARLON (PRESIDENT): $227,454 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to reduce homelessness in our city through treating its root causes substance-abuse disorders and mental illness. Through our diverse staff, we educate the public on the best-practices in addressing our homeless crisis and utilize our thirteen strategies for treatment.

What it reported doing in 2024

The purpose for the Las Vegas Metro Diversion Program is to receive referrals from Clark County Detention Center (CCDC) and Clark County Social Services (CCSS). Clients experiencing homelessness, chemical dependency, psychiatric disorders, trauma, incarceration related to non-violent offenses, and those seeking affiliation and acceptance are identified and provided solutions to issues that cannot be resolved through enforcements, arrest, incarceration, or prosecutions alone. Vegas Stronger is one of the sites Clark County has established which allows for immediate placement by law enforcement and social service for immediate stabilization, medical services, treatment, and housing.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 61% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 62.8%; rating input score 63
  • Program expense ratio: 66.8%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $37.75 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: 6%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.32; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.84; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.7%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 53.5% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 69.7% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 73.1% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 62.8% of revenue deployed · 66.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 11 filed program accomplishments · $3.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $227K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 53/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.