International Relations Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
430864912
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
Phone
7153028730
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Promotion of International Understanding

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$217,208
Expenses
$221,787
Assets
$850,666
Liabilities
$10,197

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Aaron J Mann (President)
  • Michelle Arthington (First Vice President)
  • Dave Saunders (Second Vice President)
  • Evan Verploegh (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Evan Verploegh (Executive Director): $59,654 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 International Relations Council strengthens Kansas Citys global perspective by maintaining an active dialogue around world events global issues and their impact on our community. As a nonpartisan educational nonprofit organization the IRC values informed civil discourse accessibility and substance as we work to sharpen our communities 21st-century global acumen.

What it reported doing in 2024

The International Relations Council is proud to work with Kansas City-area schools and teachers a wide range of programs for students. High school students from across the greater Kansas City area are invited to put their global knowledge to the test in the annual Academic WorldQuest competition a flagship program of the World Affairs Councils of America. The local competition hosted by the IRC every spring since 2006 is entirely cost-free for schools. In addition away from the borders and coasts Kansas City-area students are often surprised to find just how many international academic and professional opportunities await them after high school. Each fall the Your Global Future college and career fair brings students to the table with dozens of international businesses organizations colleges and universities to show them just how global their future can be.

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 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 56.5%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.93 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -2.1%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.84; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.9%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70% of revenue deployed · 56.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 22 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $125K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $60K · 23 people listed
  • Consistency: 40 of 41 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 13/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.