Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma
Legal name: Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 731100380
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Oklahoma City, OK, United States
- Phone
- 405-972-1111
- Rating
- 92
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Food Banks, Pantries
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $121,256,625
- Expenses
- $120,869,259
- Assets
- $36,374,839
- Liabilities
- $5,050,578
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
36 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- STACY DYKSTRA (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
Highest reported compensation
- STACY DYKSTRA (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $239,762 total reported compensation
- CASSIE GILMAN (CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER): $191,822 total reported compensation
- STEPHANIE MENDENHALL (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $155,073 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Since 1980, the Regional Food Bank has led the fight against hunger in central and western Oklahoma. The Regional Food Bank is the state’s largest domestic hunger-relief 501(c)(3) nonprofit that distributes food through a network of community-based partners and schools. The majority of people served are chronically hungry children, seniors living on fixed incomes and hardworking families struggling to make ends meet. The Regional Food Bank is a member of Feeding America, the nation’s network of more than 200 food banks. Our Mission Lead a network that provides nutritious food and pathways to self-sufficiency for people facing hunger.
What it reported doing in 2024
Regional food bank of Oklahoma distributed over 59 million pounds of food to partner agencies in 53 counties in central and western Oklahoma. Oklahoma is the sixth hungriest state in the nation and the majority of people served by partner agencies are chronically hungry children, seniors living on limited incomes, and hardworking families struggling to make ends meet.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 74% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 80% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 93
- Transparency & Controls: 93
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 37
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 95.3%; rating input score 95
- Program expense ratio: 95.6%; rating input score 96
- Fundraising efficiency: $43.62 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 99%; rating input score 99; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 0.3%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.3; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0.8%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 11.9% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 95.3% of revenue deployed · 95.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 30 of 30 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $115.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $240K · 36 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 38 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 32 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 33/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.