Shawnee Mission Education Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
742823938
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Shawnee Mission, KS, USA
Phone
9139939360
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$688,802
Expenses
$864,782
Assets
$1,938,524
Liabilities
$44,594

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KEN SCHAEFER (PRESIDENT)
  • DION SANKAR (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KIMBERLY HINKLE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • KEN SCHAEFER (PRESIDENT)
  • DION SANKAR (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • BRIAN DIETZ (SECRETARY)

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

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

Overview

Mission

The organizations mission is to advance scholarship and leadership, to enable all shawnee mission students to achieve their potential.

What it reported doing in 2024

We make grants to the Shawnee Mission School District USD 512 in collaboration with district curriculum leaders to fund program enhancements and growth. Examples include district programs in the arts, early childhood education and STEM. Excellence in Education grants fund individual classroom or districtwide projects to enhance innovative learning in the classroom. A new partnership with Dolly Partons Imagination Library brings age-appropriate books free to any child residing within the border of the District each month from birth to age 5. Since its inception in 2022, we have provided more than 155,000 books to preschool children.We host Leadership Shawnee Mission, an intensive, 2-week leadership program for incoming juniors and seniors which includes leadership training and professional experiences. We also partner with the District to engage students in Real World Learning experiences by making connections with partners in business and industry to offer students internships, client connected projects and entrepreneurial experiences.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 76% for direct work, and 24% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 76.4%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.8 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 25th 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.2%; rating input score 98; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -25.5%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.24; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 76.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $661K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 27 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.