United School Administrators Leadership Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
932013612
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Topeka, KS, USA
Phone
7852326566
Rating
48
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$512,565
Expenses
$174,709
Assets
$382,583
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KELLEN ADAMS (PRESIDENT)
  • RENEE SCOTT (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • GA BUIE (MEMBER): $194,323 total reported compensation
  • KIMBERLY TORREZ (MEMBER): $85,023 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to create partnerships with young adults and local organizations to explore careers, build connections, and encourage young adults to remain in southwest Kansas.during showcases, students will learn more about themselves, research local options, engage with local businesses, and create strategic plans to reach their professional goals.1. Build trusting relationships with schools, students, businesses, and communities.2. Encourage young people to remain in our rural area or facilitate their return to southwest Kansas.3. Develop a workforce responsive to the needs of rural area industries.4. Collaborate with rural area business/industry and professional educators to provide support and interaction via job shadowing, internships, and apprenticeships.5. Teach and expect leadership, teamwork, accountability, and essential skills at our showcases.

What it reported doing in 2024

Our organization facilitates western Kansas careers showcases (wkcs). Our showcases encourage graduates to have a career they are passionate about through exploration of southwest Kansas career opportunities. Our career showcases focuse on agriculture, education, technical/vocational, healthcare, and business entrepreneurship.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 81% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 86% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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: 23
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 60
  • Sustainability: 79
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 15.1%; rating input score 15
  • Program expense ratio: 44.3%; rating input score 44
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 5th 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: 92.5%; rating input score 92; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 16th 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: 65.9%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.19; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.4%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 115.4% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 158.1% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 15.1% of revenue deployed · 44.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 8 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $77K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $194K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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 15/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.