Oklahoma Humanities Council Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
730951965
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Edmond, OK, USA
Phone
4052350280
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Humanities Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,064,816
Expenses
$1,219,812
Assets
$1,549,177
Liabilities
$10,734

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

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Caroline E Lowery (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Caroline E Lowery (Executive Director): $148,003 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of Oklahoma Humanities (OH) is to strengthen communities by helping Oklahomans learn about the human experience, understand new perspectives, and participate knowledgeably in civic life.

What it reported doing in 2024

Since 1994, the Smithsonian Institutions Museum on Main Street (MoMS) has worked with State Humanities Councils to empower more than 1,800 rural communities through specifically designed exhibitions and public programming. Hosted by libraries, museums, and other community centers, each explores elements of rural history, encourages discussion and participation, and helps establish local agency. In 2021, Crossroads: Change in Rural America arrived in Oklahoma and traveled to Tishomingo, Fort Gibson, Nowata, Woodward, Pawnee, and Boley. Small towns might seem static and quiet, but they are complex intersections where people and ideas converge and evolve. Through the themes of identity, land, community, persistence, and managing change, the exhibition examined this history and asked visitors to consider how and why their specific communities have changed and what the future might bring.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 68% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 74% for direct work, and 26% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 63
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.2%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 47.1%; rating input score 47
  • Fundraising efficiency: $24.5 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 3.9%; rating input score 4; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -14.6%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.27; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.1%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.2% of revenue deployed · 47.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 24 of 24 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $575K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $148K · 26 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 29 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.