Kansas Health Science University Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
825178988
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Wichita, KS, USA
Phone
3168663482
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Graduate, Professional Schools (Separate Entities)

Reported finances

Revenue
$28,831,428
Expenses
$29,985,721
Assets
$91,993,553
Liabilities
$104,395,839

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

Leadership & pay

31 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Michael Horowitz (Corporate President/Trustee)

Highest reported compensation

  • Michael Horowitz (Corporate President/Trustee): $1,747,997 total reported compensation
  • Deborah Markos (Vice Chair): $616,946 total reported compensation
  • David Ninan (Chief Academic Officer): $475,864 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 Health Science University's mission is to provide access to osteopathic medical and other health sciences education and training through emphasizing opportunity, academic excellence, and community engagement.

What it reported doing in 2024

Kansas Health Science University (KHSU) was established to prepare forward-thinking, empathic osteopathic physicians and leaders at the intersection of health and converging fields. KHSU upholds quality and innovation as guiding principles to develop rigorous academic programming adaptable to future needs. With community as a core value, KHSU is dedicated to finding collective solutions locally and globally and advancing impact in underserved communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 81% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 81
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.6%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: 72.5%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.98 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 17th 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: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.07; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.13; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.8%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 41.4% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 69.1% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.6% of revenue deployed · 72.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 18 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $21.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.7M · 31 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $801K reported
  • Consistency: 38 of 39 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 10 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.

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

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.