Nonprofit Human Services CFO Salary in Kansas

Official IRS Form 990 Schedule J compensation benchmarks for CFO positions across human services 501(c)(3) nonprofits in Kansas (with annual budgets between $25M – $50M). Based on 32 matched filings for IRS § 4958 safe harbor compliance.

25th Percentile
$210,038
Lower Bound
Median (50th %)
$222,612
Market Consensus
75th Percentile
$244,046
Safe Harbor Ceiling
Matched Peer Group
32 Filings
IRS Verified Peers
Filter Peer Group
Empirical Market Analysis · Kansas
Census Division: West North Central

At $222,612, the median CFO compensation for Kansas nonprofits in the $25M – $50M operating band sits 27.8% below the national benchmark ($308,320), reflecting regional cost-of-labor variations in the West North Central division. Matched peer filings establish an interquartile safe harbor range between $210,038 (25th percentile) and $244,046 (75th percentile).

Across this 32-organization peer group, median executive remuneration accounts for 1% of total organizational operating expenditures (interquartile peer range: 1% – 1%). Base salary represents an average of 85% of total compensation, with performance incentives reported by 100% of reporting institutions (averaging $11,565 among participating organizations).

Interquartile Safe Harbor Distribution

Treasury Regulation § 53.4958-6(c)(2) Rebuttable Presumption Bandwidth

32 Verified Filings
P10$196,642
P25 (Safe Min)$210,038
Median (50th)$222,612
P75 (Safe Max)$244,046
P90$272,846
Legal Precedent: To secure the IRS Rebuttable Presumption of Reasonableness, tax-exempt governing boards must establish that approved compensation falls within market comparability bounds prior to voting. Compensation between the 25th and 75th percentiles ($210,038 – $244,046) represents the defensible interquartile standard accepted by federal regulators.

Schedule J Pay-Mix Distribution

Average component allocation across Form 990 Part VII Section A & Schedule J Part II extracts

32 Matched Filings
Base Salary
$196,609
85% of total remuneration
Bonus & Incentive
$11,565
100% peer participation
Deferred Comp
$11,565
100% peer participation
Nontaxable Benefits
$11,565
100% peer coverage
Sample Size32 Matched Filings
Average Budget$29,929,759
Pay-to-Budget Ratio1% (1%–1%)
IRS Filing Vintage2022–2025 XML Extracts

Matched Form 990 Peer Organizations

Sample peer group entries matched by budget, NTEE taxonomy, and geographic cost-of-labor

Showing 3 of 32 peers
CENTER INDUSTRIES CORPORATION
EIN: 480823001 • Metro Area, KS • Budget: $35,670,772
$2••,•••
Schedule J Locked
GOODLIFE INNOVATIONS INC
EIN: 384048144 • Metro Area, KS • Budget: $32,710,549
$2••,•••
Schedule J Locked
Mercy Without Limits
EIN: 455297608 • Metro Area, KS • Budget: $32,250,351
$2••,•••
Schedule J Locked

Access All 32 Matched Peer Filings

Generate the full, audit-ready 8-page Board Compliance Packet including individual peer line-item disclosures (Base, Bonus, Deferred, Benefits), statutory citations, and turnkey board minutes.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the typical salary for a CFO at a Kansas nonprofit with $25M – $50M?

Based on 32 verified IRS Form 990 Schedule J filings in Kansas, the median total compensation for a CFO is $222,612. The 25th percentile sits at $210,038 and the 75th percentile (the rebuttable safe harbor ceiling) is $244,046.

How does Kansas CFO pay compare to national averages?

At $222,612, median CFO compensation in Kansas is 27.8% lower than the national baseline ($308,320) for comparable operating budgets, consistent with economic indices in the West North Central division.

What percentage of operating budget should a 501(c)(3) spend on its CFO?

Across matched peer filings for $25M – $50M nonprofits, median CFO compensation represents 1% of total organizational operating expenses. The middle 50% of peer institutions allocate between 1% and 1% of expenditures to executive leadership.

How does Treasury Regulation § 53.4958-6 protect board members approving executive compensation?

Under Treasury Regulation § 53.4958-6, tax-exempt governing boards secure the Rebuttable Presumption of Reasonableness when they rely on independent comparability data from similarly situated peer organizations prior to voting and record the decision contemporaneously in their minutes. Once established, the legal burden shifts to the IRS to prove that compensation was excessive.