Boys & Girls Club of Manhattan Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237358134
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Manhattan, KS, USA
Phone
7855391947
Rating
87
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,124,098
Expenses
$4,610,627
Assets
$4,330,025
Liabilities
$2,870,295

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • EMILY WEHLING (PRESIDENT)
  • CHRISTIAN BISHOP (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • PRESTON SCHOTTE (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • HANNAH COASH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • BRADY ARMSTRONG (INTERIM CHIEF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • HANNAH COASH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $118,045 total reported compensation
  • BRADY ARMSTRONG (INTERIM CHIEF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $102,373 total reported compensation
  • JACQUELINE COGGINS (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE & EMPL): $79,296 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to inspire and enable all young people to realize their full potential as productive, caring and responsible citizens.

What it reported doing in 2025

Boys and girls club is committed to creating opportunities and providing a safe place for area kids who need the organization most. The club provides essential programs to young people ages 6 to 18 during out-of-school hours - after school, all day during the summer, as well as selected evenings and weekends. Programs promote academic success, healthy lifestyles and good character. In the absence of the organization's twelve sites, many of the youth the club serves would be at an elevated risk of academic failure, obesity and engaging in other negative behaviors through circumstances beyond their control.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.7%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 83.8%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.31 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 33; 33rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -11.8%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.94; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.66; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.5%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.9% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 93.7% of revenue deployed · 83.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $118K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 37 of 38 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 47/100.