Charles R and Karen P Stephenson Family Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201687422
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
West Point, MS, USA
Phone
9187128487
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$97,710
Expenses
$242,805
Assets
$1,948,970
Liabilities
$5,805

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • PHIL LAKIN JR (TCF CL DIRECTOR): $725,134 total reported compensation
  • JEFF STAVA (TCF CL DIRECTOR): $642,550 total reported compensation
  • MIKE DODSON (TCF CL DIRECTOR): $265,577 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

This corporation is organized for the specific and primary purpose of benefitting, performing the functions of, or carrying out the purposes of that class of publicly supported organizations, including tulsa community foundation, that are described in sections 501(c)(3) and 509(a)(1) or (2) of the internal revenue code and that engage in charitable activities which are consistent with the charitale purposes of tulsa community foundation.

What it reported doing in 2024

The charles r and karen p stephenson foundation is a type 1 supporting organization for the tulsa community foundation (tcf) (a 501(c)(3) exempt organization). Its activities are to make distributions to tcf for further distribution by tcf to other charitable organizations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 100% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 98% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 59
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 57.1%; rating input score 57; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: -148.5%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.03; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 72.7%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: -17.5% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 7 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $243K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $725K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 13 of 13 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 3 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 57/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.