Kansas Bankers Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
480937602
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Topeka, KS, USA
Phone
7852323444
Rating
44
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,268,968
Expenses
$4,336,873
Assets
$7,018,418
Liabilities
$2,730,798

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

Leadership & pay

28 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DOUG WAREHAM (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • DOUG WAREHAM (President): $348,619 total reported compensation
  • ALEX GREIG (SVP-KBA INSURANCE): $211,241 total reported compensation
  • KATHLEEN A TAYLOR (SVP -GEN COUNSEL): $206,373 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To support and assist Kansas banks and Kansas bankers.

What it reported doing in 2024

The following services are provided to approximately 400 member banks and associate members, as well as nonmember banks: education and training -the Kansas bankers association attempts to provide full and complete education and training services for all employees of banks, ranging from the newest tellers to the most senior chief executive officers and directors. We conduct numerous seminars conferences, clinics and an annual meeting throughout the course of a year, providing comprehensive education and training program services which are very valuable to all Kansas banks.government relations -the kba is extremely active and involved in legislative and regulatory changes, both at the federal and state level, which affect all Kansas banks. Typical issues for which we actively provide information to both the legislature and congress include: 1) legislation dealing with maximum interest rates on loans; 2) perfection of liens on collateral; 3) banking structure issues , such as branch banking and holding companies; and 4) legislation dealing with giving competitors unfair advantages. Our association also works closely with federal and state regulators, such as the comptroller general of currency, the federal reserve board, f.d.i.c., and the state banking department. Regulator policies dealing with loan classification, loan charge-offs, and capital requirements are issues which receive a great deal of attention from the kba.legal department - we provide assistance to all Kansas banks with legal, litigative, and compliance matters. Deregulation of banks by "fits and starts" has created many problems and questions in the minds of all Kansas bankers. We have attempted to assist bankers through this deregulatory process. Also, our current economic environment has created many lawsuits for Kansas banks. Our legal department maintains complete litigative files so that any bank's attorney can call the kba for a quick update on any legal issue. This saves a great deal of legal expense for all Kansas banks.also, the Kansas bankers association many times file amicus curiae briefs when we believe specific items of litigation have definite all-bank overtones and would set an inappropriate legal precedent for all Kansas banks. The legal department is designed to be of assistance to, and save money for all Kansas banks and to foster a healthy banking climate in Kansas.communications - the kba maintains an active, ongoing communications program. We publish a monthly magazine in an attempt to keep bankers updated so that much information can be disseminated without calling conference or seminars. During the legislative session, a weekly legislative bulletin is mailed to all Kansas banks describing legislation introduced which has an affect on banks, and the specific status on such legislation. In addition, many special bulletins are sent out periodically to all Kansas banks to help keep bankers up to date. Examples of this would be bulletins dealing with maximum interest rates paid on public funds; maximum interest rates payable on loans; maximum interest rates payable on deposits, etc.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 98% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 5th 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: 57.4%; rating input score 57; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.6%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.62; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.39; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.5%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 22 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $349K · 28 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 12 of 14 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 filed related-organization links
  • 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 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.