Kansas Counseling Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237164616
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2009–2014
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Overland Park, KS, USA
Phone
9132262085
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$68,330
Expenses
$66,364
Assets
$75,171
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Diann Faflick (President)
  • Kris Burkholder (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Diann Faflick (President)
  • Ann Miller (Treasurer)
  • Kris Burkholder (Vice President)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To enhance human development through the life span through the counseling profession.

What it reported doing in 2014

The mission of the Kansas Counseling Association is to enhance human development through the lifespan and to promote the counseling profession. The Association sponsors several conferences through out the year to assist in professional development of its members. The association is the only organization in the state which promotes the counseling profession and does so primarily through providing assistance and resources to ite membership. The association depends upon its membership to carry out the work of the association.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 64% 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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Expenses are high relative to revenue and assets have declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 63.6%; rating input score 64
  • Program expense ratio: 65.5%; rating input score 65

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.9%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.13; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 22.8% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.8% per year; rating input score 0; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 63.6% of revenue deployed · 65.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $43K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2009 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 51/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.