Oklahoma Farm Bureau
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 730382001
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2016–2023
- Forms available
- Form 990 2023
- Location
- Oklahoma City, OK, USA
- Rating
- 70
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $6,243,414
- Expenses
- $6,194,793
- Assets
- $9,014,091
- Liabilities
- $1,482,803
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Thad Doye (Executive Director)
- Rodd Moesel (President)
- Monte Tucker (Vice President)
Highest reported compensation
- Thad Doye (Executive Director): $324,569 total reported compensation
- Rodd Moesel (President): $117,908 total reported compensation
- Stacy Simunek (Director): $45,808 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Supporting the agriculture community to improve the lives of oklahomans
What it reported doing in 2023
Public relationsproduces a quarterly magazine, Oklahoma country and a biweekly publication, perspective. Staff writes articles and takes pictures of various members or people of interest to the agricultural community. The perspective shares the most current updates on Oklahoma farm bureau activities and items of interest to agriculture producers. Producevideos of members and their farming practices for use at the state convention and public sharing. Produce multiple types of content for newspaper, local news and social media. Hosts a media training conference for ffa reporters. 89,000+ persons benefitted
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 77% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 88% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 71
- Transparency & Controls: 60
- Accountability: 82
- Sustainability: 44
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 79.9%; rating input score 80
- Program expense ratio: 79.3%; rating input score 79
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 7th 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: 77.3%; rating input score 77; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
- 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: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 0.8%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.46; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.7%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 10% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 79.9% of revenue deployed · 79.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.9M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $325K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2016 to 2023
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 17 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 10 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: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 47/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.