HIV Resource Consortium Inc Dba Tulsa CARES

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
731388569
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Tulsa, OK, USA
Phone
9188344194
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
AIDS

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,006,343
Expenses
$4,189,649
Assets
$9,161,539
Liabilities
$267,537

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Carly Senger Wignarajah (CEO)
  • Shonda Fisher (Vice President)
  • Patrick Gordon (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Madhuri Lad (Physician): $158,053 total reported compensation
  • Carly Senger Wignarajah (CEO): $150,696 total reported compensation
  • Natalie Jarred (CFO): $136,080 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Tulsa CARES is committed to delivering tailored and integrated programs and services that support clients in accessing medical care, achieving treatment adherence, experiencing improved health outcomes, and living an enhanced quality of life. We advocate for the end of stigma by addressing client empowerment and self-worth as well as engaging with the community through awareness, education, and partnerships.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Tulsa Cares housing program addresses unstable housing and serves as a gateway into care, thus improving the effectiveness of other programs and empowering clients to better focus on their health. Tulsa Cares offers financial assistance to qualified clients and their families, including long-term planning, mortgage, rent, utility, and deposit assistance. Client participation requires case management and the development of a housing plan of action to address barriers to stable housing.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 71% for direct work, and 29% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration and the available information about grant readiness federal audit leaves an important question unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.1%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 84.5%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $33.93 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.3%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.19; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.3%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.2% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71.1% of revenue deployed · 84.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $3.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $158K · 20 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $353K reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.