Wichita Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
481022361
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Wichita, KS, USA
Phone
3162644880
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,351,835
Expenses
$9,158,281
Assets
$112,154,248
Liabilities
$15,479,673

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHELLY PRICHARD (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHELLY PRICHARD (PRESIDENT & CEO): $291,423 total reported compensation
  • COURTNEY BENGTSON (CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER): $138,951 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 wichita foundation invests in people and ideas to spark change, and envisions a place where all wichitans thrive and belong. As community conveners, the foundation leads with courage, grows equitable relationships, ignites philanthropy and believes in wichita. For more information, visit wichitafoundation.org or call 316-264-4880.

What it reported doing in 2024

The wichita foundation is a tax-exempt, place-based community foundation advancing the long-term vitality and upward mobility of the wichita region. Through nearly 300 charitable funds and the fund for wichita, our unrestricted community resource, we bring together philanthropists, dollars, and ideas to expand opportunity and strengthen community systems. Key initiatives include press forward wichita, which strengthens local journalism and access to trusted information, and nonprofit elevation, which invests in nonprofit capacity, leadership, and sustainability to support community well-being.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 63% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 91% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 82
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 86.6%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.68 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 94.5%; rating input score 94; 24th 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 25.9%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 12.25; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.7%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87% of revenue deployed · 86.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $7.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $291K · 19 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $158K reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 38 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 153 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 152 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 37/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • 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.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.