Oklahoma Innovation Institute Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
261317404
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016, Form 990-N 2011
Location
Tulsa, OK, USA
Phone
9188638702
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Business and Industry

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$883,910
Expenses
$1,921,182
Assets
$1,542,409
Liabilities
$178,906

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BARRY M DAVIS (PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN)
  • VINCE LOVOI (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID GREER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAVID GREER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $110,889 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Oklahoma innovation institute (oii) is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation committed to building an innovative economy in the tulsa region. Oii fosters collaborative research and development, entrepreneurship, stem education, company creation and retention, life-long learning and creative, future-oriented thinking. These objectives are driven by private sector, education, government and philanthropic partnerships.

What it reported doing in 2016

Tulsa research partners (trp), the cornerstone program of the Oklahoma innovation institute (oii), represents an historic, collaborative, multidisciplinary research partnership formed by the university of tulsa, Oklahoma university- tulsa, Oklahoma state university- tulsa and tulsa community college.the tulsa research partners initiative is designed to drive economic growth through three research-centered objectives: 1) to encourage and support collaborative, multidisciplinary research among colleges, universities, and private sector research groups; 2) to facilitate technology transfer relating to a "grow your own" startup company culture in the region and (3) to attract new major, research funding to the region.this is supported by the a.r. And mary louise tandy community supercomputing center, which houses one of the nation's most advanced community supercomputers. The function of this community supercomputer is to provide common infrastructure for collaborative research and development, to identify large-scale multidisciplinary research funding, investigator pairing and ultimately grant writing support. By providing a forum to support the growing community of researchers in our region, the tandy supercomputing center will support the transition of scientific research and technologies to commercially viable products and solutions.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 85
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 84.6%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $24.51 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: -117.4%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.8; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.8%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 21.9% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -44.2% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -26.3% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 84.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 13 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $111K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2012 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.