Lenexa Chamber of Commerce Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 480797145
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2019–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Lenexa, KS, USA
- Phone
- 9138881414
- Rating
- 39
- Verdict
- REVIEW
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,128,265
- Expenses
- $941,635
- Assets
- $998,026
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
18 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ASHLEY K SHERARD (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- ASHLEY K SHERARD (CEO): $154,570 total reported compensation
- LAURA BALDWIN (COO): $105,750 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The lenexa chamber of commerces mission is to provide its business members clout in the community, promote access to key leaders and resources, present a forum for businesses to affect the business climate, and play a lead role in ensuring strong economic growth and quality of life in lenexa.
What it reported doing in 2025
With decades of well-respected service to the community, the lenexa chamber of commerce has earned its reputation as a strong voice and resource on behalf of area businesses by accomplishing the following: providing businesses with the resources to succeed including networking events to cultivate business relationships, cost-effective marketing, business exposure and referrals, informational programming, and business services; supporting businesses bottom line by bringing new customers, visitors, and investment to the community through economic development and visitor services; proactively promoting local, state, and federal policies that support economic growth and creating forums for meaningful interaction between chamber members and policymakers; andbuilding alliances and opportunities to plan for the long-term vitality of lenexa.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 68% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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
REVIEW - 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: 66
- Accountability: 68
- Sustainability: 56
- 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 16.5%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.06; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 27.6%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -12.5% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 21.9% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $155K · 18 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 11 of 12 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2019 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 9 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.