The Kansas Rural Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
480897530
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
North Newton, KS, USA
Phone
8665795469
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$516,932
Expenses
$493,630
Assets
$286,237
Liabilities
$221,195

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ZACK PISTORA (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • TOM BULLER (EXECUTIVE DI): $75,755 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Kansas rural center (krc) is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization that promotes the long-term health of the land and its people through research, education, and advocacy.

What it reported doing in 2024

The integrated voter engagement project, sunflower stories, engaged with four communities across the state to promote community conversations around sustainable food and farming systems. Krc's farm to school program provided education to producers who are looking to sell to school markets through direct workshops, videos and other online resources. Our farm beginnings program offered training opportunities to new and beginning farmers. The general program work also provides educational programs, materials and news and analysis via a quarterly print newsletter, monthly electronic newsletters and notices, news releases, a podcast discussing soil health and hosting an in person conference on farm and food system policy, production practices and general sustainable agriculture and food system issues.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.9%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 79.5%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.47 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.5%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.58; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.77; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.3%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.9% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75.9% of revenue deployed · 79.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $392K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $76K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 36/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.