Kansas Farm Bureau
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 480546988
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Manhattan, KS, USA
- Phone
- 7855876000
- Rating
- 54
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $17,364,333
- Expenses
- $12,784,802
- Assets
- $120,232,760
- Liabilities
- $880,691
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
21 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- TERRY HOLDREN (CEO/SEC/LEGA)
Highest reported compensation
- TERRY HOLDREN (CEO/SEC/LEGA): $461,517 total reported compensation
- JOSEPH NEWLAND (PRESIDNET): $335,730 total reported compensation
- JOEL LEFTWICH (CHIEF STRATE): $274,237 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Kansas farm bureau exists to strengthen agriculture and the lives of kansans through advocacy, education, and service.
What it reported doing in 2024
Kansas farm bureaus farm leader letter is a hard copy newsletter that keeps voting members informed on issues that impact their farms and ranches. From oct. 1, 2024, to sept. 30, 2025, the leader letter was published 10 times. For the months february, may, august and november, fll reached approximately 106,000 farm bureau members in Kansas per Kansas living issue. For the remaining months, fll reached an average of 30,000 households per publication. Every issue contains updates on legislative action that impacts Kansas farmers and ranchers as well as important updates and information regarding their farm organization. Kansas farm bureaus Kansas living magazine is published quarterly and reaches more than 106,000 farm bureau members in Kansas. From oct. 1, 2024, to sept. 30, 2025, the magazine was published four times. Each issue contains recipes the whole family can enjoy, events and places to visit in Kansas and interesting farmer and agricultural stories.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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: 91
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 80
- 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%; rating input score 90; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 98.6%; rating input score 99; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 26.4%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.4; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 12.2%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $462K · 21 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $750K reported
- Consistency: 11 of 13 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 15 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 12 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.
- 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.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.