Mercy Health Oklahoma Communities
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 731453048
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Oklahoma City, OK, USA
- Phone
- 3145796100
- Rating
- 57
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $23,071,037
- Expenses
- $23,089,003
- Assets
- $91,177,858
- Liabilities
- $24,563,529
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
25 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- GEISTER BENNETT (PRESIDENT, MERCY OKLAHOMA CITY COMMUNITIES)
Highest reported compensation
- JOHNSTON JEFFREY A (FORMER OFFICER): $1,306,639 total reported compensation
- CAMPBELL MD JESSE (PHYSICIAN & BOARD MEMBER): $1,296,473 total reported compensation
- BUENDIA MD JOSEPH (PHYSICIAN & BOARD MEMBER): $1,178,962 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
As the sisters of mercy before us, we bring to life the healing ministry of jesus through our compassionate care and exceptional service.
What it reported doing in 2024
Mercy health Oklahoma communities is a supporting organization of mercy hospital Oklahoma city and mercy clinic Oklahoma communities. Mercy health Oklahoma communities also provided support services to other members of the mercy Oklahoma community, including mercy hospital ada, mercy hospital ardmore, mercy hospital healdton, mercy hospital kingfisher, mercy hospital logan county, mercy hospital tishomingo, and mercy hospital watonga. The support services included functions that, but for mercy health Oklahoma communities, would be conducted by each separate organization.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
The verdict
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 36
- Transparency & Controls: 67
- Accountability: 73
- Sustainability: 52
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 40.8%; rating input score 41
- Program expense ratio: 40.8%; rating input score 41
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 69.2%; rating input score 69; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: -0.1%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.95; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.7%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 13.7% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 40.8% of revenue deployed · 40.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $9.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $1.3M · 25 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $587K reported
- Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes executive pay and related organizations
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Related organizations: 83 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 41/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 41/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.