Oklahoma Blood Institute Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311721750
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Phone
4052975700
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,108,171
Expenses
$1,910,073
Assets
$4,952,864
Liabilities
$250,000

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • John B Armitage MD (President & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • John B Armitage MD (President & CEO): $910,905 total reported compensation
  • Randall G Stark (Treasurer & CFO): $360,785 total reported compensation
  • Larry Bookman MD (Director): $12,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Okalhoma blood institute foundation (foundation) was formed exclusively to support mission-related activities, services, and programs of the Oklahoma blood institute (an Oklahoma nonprofit corporation).

What it reported doing in 2024

Funds are to fund donable operations to allow the core business to invest in the critical areas of donor recruitment and retention. This grant will support four key areas: obi production, software performance and features, us and global expansion and business administration infrastructure. The anticipated production from the grant includes 4,335 additional donations for obi and three additional blood center partner agreements producing additional revenue from software fees.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% 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: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 62
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 98%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 10th 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; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 8th 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: 9.4%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.59; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.8%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 98% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 6 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $911K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 7 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 50/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.