Food Bank of Eastern Oklahoma

Legal name: Community Food Bank of Eastern Oklahoma Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
731184980
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Tulsa, OK, US
Phone
(918) 585-2800
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Food Banks, Pantries

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$61,142,099
Expenses
$60,894,935
Assets
$55,008,622
Liabilities
$2,208,322

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

Leadership & pay

36 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JEFFREY MARLOW (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
  • CALVIN MOORE (FORMER CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • JEFFREY MARLOW (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $177,799 total reported compensation
  • KARLA DAVIS (CHIEF FINANCE OFFICER): $140,120 total reported compensation
  • MATTHEW JOSTES (CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER): $122,554 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To end hunger in eastern Oklahoma.

What it reported doing in 2024

Distributed 30,990,009 pounds of food through more than 600 community-based food pantries and meal programs. The equivalent of 25,731,341 meals per year. Partners offer meal programs which include on-site hot meals, emergency shelters, food pantries, child and senior meal programs, veterans initiatives, and disaster relief programs. Programs such as the backpack program, school pantries, mobile market, healthcare pantries, and culinary charitable meals were designed by feeding america or fbeo to reach underserved demographics, including children, seniors, veterans, indigent patients, and rural residents. Fbeo also facilitates federal feeding programs that are available to children, adults, and seniors within specific income guidelines: kids caf (cacfp-at-risk), summer meals (sfsp), and senior programs (csfp, cacfp-adult).

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 68% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 87% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 93
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 92
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 94.5%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 94.7%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: $51.87 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 80.7%; rating input score 81; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 95.2%; rating input score 95; 48th 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: 0.4%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.9; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.7%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 7 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 94.5% of revenue deployed · 94.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 21 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $57.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $178K · 36 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 40 of 41 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 306 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 298 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.