Debate-Kansas City

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
710954101
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
Phone
8167868434
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development – Citizenship

Reported finances

Revenue
$227,320
Expenses
$44,755
Assets
$166,849
Liabilities
$110

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Bandon Dial (President)
  • Erika Vega (Vice President)
  • Jane Rinehart (Executive Director)

People named in this filing

  • Bandon Dial (President)
  • Erika Vega (Vice President)
  • Louis Petit (Treasurer)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To improve academic performance and increase opportunities for urban students through participation in debate.

What it reported doing in 2024

For 27 years, DEBATE-Kansas City has provided opportunities for underserved urban students in the Greater Kansas City through debate. It is through this activity that students have improved their grades, tested higher, improved their reading skills, and developed critical thinking skills. To that extent, this past year we have hosted 12 regular debate tournaments at both the high school and middle school levels. We have had over 350 students engaged in the activity from 30 schools in both Missouri and Kansas. We have been able to improve our coaching staff at our new schools and re-establish existing programs. At each tournament, we have had over twenty different volunteers helping with judging, coaching, and general assistance. Each volunteer gave at least 6 hours of their time per tournament. The total volunteer hours are close to 1400 hours. Thanks to a lot of hard work, we will have three teams competing at the National Urban Debate Tournament. This will be held on the Harvard campus. Last summer we were able to send two students to the Harvard Summer Debate Institute and one student to the University of Kentucky Fellows Program. Last year, at the middle school level, we competed in the National Urban Middle School Championships. One team advanced to quarter-finals. We also had a student ranked 3rd speaker, and another student ranked 10. This year, we have six very eager teams ready to compete in this tournament. One of our high school teams has qualified to a state debate tournament, and others are poised to qualify out of their district. We conclude our season in April with an Awards Night that celebrates all the hard work.

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 92% 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. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 30
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 82
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 13.2%; rating input score 13
  • Program expense ratio: 67.2%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 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: 80.3%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.73; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.8% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 13.2% of revenue deployed · 67.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $30K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 41 of 41 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 13/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.