Great Plains Development Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
480971150
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Dodge City, KS, USA
Phone
6202276406
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Rural Economic Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$315,066
Expenses
$398,784
Assets
$1,705,264
Liabilities
$60,755

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dan Fankhauser (President)
  • Craig Neeland (Vice President)
  • Faye Trent (Co-Executive Director)
  • Bob Wetmore (Co-Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Bob Wetmore (Co-Executive Director): $85,428 total reported compensation
  • Faye Trent (Co-Executive Director): $82,370 total reported compensation
  • Hannah Sparks (Associate Director): $47,006 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Under the oversight of its 28 county membership and 10 member Board of Directors, GPDI provides professional leadership and technical assistance in financing, loan packaging and business planning to individuals, businesses and government agencies for the purpose of stimulating economic development and job creation in our 28 county area. Our resources also include programs that assist our cities and counties with grant writing and certified administration for community improvement, housing and urgent need projects. Many of its services and grants require a charitable not-for-profit status.

What it reported doing in 2024

Network Kansas GrowKS programs - The Network Kansas GrowKS funds represent pass through funding for making loans. Counties received grant funding to make the loans and are outsourcing the loan administration to Great Plains. GPDI receives the packaging, closing and any direct expenses incurred. As payments are received on the loans, GPDI keeps $40 of the interest paid plus any late fees and/or service fees.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 89% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99.1%; rating input score 99
  • Program expense ratio: 78.3%; rating input score 78
  • 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -26.6%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.28; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 53.9%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.9% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 99.1% of revenue deployed · 78.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $312K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $85K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.