Oklahoma City Innovation District Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
730756329
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Phone
4054109343
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,626,223
Expenses
$2,372,565
Assets
$9,558,235
Liabilities
$764,177

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JEFFREY SEYMOUR (PRESIDENT / CEO)
  • KOEY KEYLON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BIOTC)
  • CHRISTIAN KANADY (BOARD PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • KATHY CULLEN (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $207,109 total reported compensation
  • KOEY KEYLON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BIOTC): $192,339 total reported compensation
  • JEFFREY SEYMOUR (PRESIDENT / CEO): $8,846 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 bring together the greatest minds in total collaboration, yielding world-changing results. Home to internationally-acclaimed organizations spanning oklahomas diverse sectors - health, energy, aerospace, technology, academia and more - the innovation district provides opportunities for entrepreneurship, innovation and community growth.

What it reported doing in 2024

Innovation district - the organization has agreed to partner with and provide services to other entities to help create a unified vision and strategy for the development of a vibrant, cohesive innovation district.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 88% 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

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 35
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 19%; rating input score 19
  • Program expense ratio: 71.6%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 75.4%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.03; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.2%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24.4% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 52.8% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.8% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 19% of revenue deployed · 71.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 12 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $207K · 15 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $478K reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 19/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.