Business Technology Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
951624714
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
Phone
8169413100
Rating confidence
Limited

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,256,626
Expenses
$2,020,488
Assets
$9,240,830
Liabilities
$1,042,647

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ADAM GREGORY (BOARD MEMBER / PRESIDENT)
  • DEBRA DENNIS (BOARD MBR / PRESIDENT ELECT)
  • DON RISSER (BOARD MBR / PAST PRESIDENT)
  • BRENT HOSKINS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRENT HOSKINS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $207,984 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The association is an international not-for-profit trade association serving independent dealers, value-added resellers, systems integrators, manufacturers and distributors in the business equipment and systems industry. The association helps its members profit through a wide variety of services, including free legal advice and guidance, business benchmarking studies and reports, information on the latest news, trends, and products in the industry, strong educational offerings, and industry specific publications, the office technology magazine and bta hotline online. The purpose of the association is to provide essential services that help independent technology resellers to succeed in a changing marketplace. The association is sharply focused on meeting the most critical needs that are vital to the success of its core customers. The mission of the association is to help make information technology resellers successful by providing education, training and certification.

What it reported doing in 2024

Business support services: all link references are to the association's website www.bta.org: ask the analyst servicebackground checksbusiness valuation servicescollection servicescredit card processingcredit report and business information servicesemployee assessment toolsjob descriptionsnew sales rep trainingon-hold messaging serviceonline office supplies shopping cart servicepayroll processingpeer collaboration groups: pro dealer group and select dealer grouprecruitment servicesrelationship management/crmtelemarketing/lead generation

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 filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 59
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 64
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • 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: 10.5%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.57; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.3%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $208K · 13 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $164K reported
  • Consistency: 9 of 10 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay and related organizations
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.