Oklahoma Zoological Society

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
730688645
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Phone
4054272461
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,570,293
Expenses
$2,933,774
Assets
$14,465,756
Liabilities
$54,545

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

Leadership & pay

29 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DANIEL ADAMS (President)
  • DEREK GILL (PRESIDENT-ELECT)

Highest reported compensation

  • AMANDA HEAPS (Executive Dir.): $121,179 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Oklahoma zoological society connects the community with the okc zoo to inspire conservation action through philanthropy.

What it reported doing in 2024

The primary purpose of the Oklahoma zoological society is to support the oklahomacity zoological park and its programs of education, recreation, conservation andresearch. All of the program funds raised go directly to support exhibits, animalcare, education programs, conservation programs, zoo enhancements, and zoo fund forkids. Each year the Oklahoma zoological society funds special projects and programsfor the zoo such as expedition africa, veterinary equipment, sculptures, improvements to animal habitats, extra funds for animal care, benches for the park, funding for the zoo's conservation projects and new materials for theeducation department.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 88% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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: 41
  • Transparency & Controls: 97
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 87
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 30.8%; rating input score 31
  • Program expense ratio: 71.3%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 61.2%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.93; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.1%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.3% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 30.8% of revenue deployed · 71.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 29 of 29 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $121K · 29 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 31/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.