Recovering Oklahomans After Disaster Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
831952160
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2021
Location
Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Phone
4056988610
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Disaster Preparedness and Relief Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$815,212
Expenses
$765,225
Assets
$322,689
Liabilities
$85,616

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Chad E Detwiler (President)
  • Luke (Vice President COO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Chad E Detwiler (President): $90,000 total reported compensation
  • Luke (Vice President COO): $75,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

See Schedule O

What it reported doing in 2025

Road administrative services include acting as a centralization agent for all disaster survivors who have home repair needs they can not meet on their own. Road maintains a database of all disaster survivors who have need during response for immediate assistance with roof tarping, muckout, and/or debris clean up and following during recovery for all disaster survivors who have need for a home damage assessment as well as full home repairs. Road tracks the status of each project and the volunteer teams that serve to ensure each disaster survivor reaches full recovery. Road also maintains an online project map to help recruit volunteers. Road works across all agencies that work in disaster through membership in the oklahoma voluntary organizations active in disaster OKVOAD.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 88% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 21
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.4%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 78.2%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: $227.18 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.1%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.42; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.6%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 32.9% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 29.6% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.8% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.4% of revenue deployed · 78.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $598K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $90K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 26 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.