Oklahoma Association of Conservation Districts Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
730801393
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Phone
4057880931
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,379,289
Expenses
$2,040,467
Assets
$767,459
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ED CASEY (PRESIDENT)
  • LYLE BLAKLEY (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • PHIL CAMPBELL (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DONNIE NERO (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • SARAH BLANEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JOE CAUGHLIN (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • ED CASEY (PRESIDENT)
  • LYLE BLAKLEY (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • PHIL CAMPBELL (VICE PRESIDENT)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

To provide leadership, resources and partnership oppotunities for conservation districts and those who manage the land to enhance our natural resources for a better Oklahoma.

What it reported doing in 2024

Oacd annual meeting- this event brings together over 400 conservation leaders from throughout Oklahoma for continuing education and interaction to help further conservation and stewardship work on private land in Oklahoma. The meeting also hosts the state finals of the oacd speech, poster and essay contest, which helps incentivize students to learn more about good conservation and its benefit to the environment and economy.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 68% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.8%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 5th 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: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 14.2%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.38; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.1% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.1% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 24.9% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.8% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.