Rotary Club of Tulsa Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237225396
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Official website data refreshed
Jul 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Tulsa, OK, US
Phone
9185847642
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Men's Service Clubs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$345,081
Expenses
$372,492
Assets
$5,244,053
Liabilities
$14,135

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

People named in this filing

  • SCOTT FILSTRUP (TRUSTEE)
  • PHIL VILES (TRUSTEE)
  • JOE MORAN (TRUSTEE)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Support activities of rotary club of tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, inc.

What it reported doing in 2024

Shop with a cop: shop with a cop is an intervention program in partnership with the tulsa fraternal order of police, celia clinton elementary school (our partner-in-education school for over 20 years), and target. Rotary club of tulsa foundation and the tfop each contribute $2,000 to the project. With the help of school counselors, 35-40 elementary students are identified as not only from families with financial hardship but also those that may have had a difficult experience with the police. For example, having a parent removed from the household or the child removed from an unsafe situation.the selected students are each paired with a police officer and a rotarian at the store. Together they develop a christmas shopping list. While the officer and child shop for the family, the rotarian secretly assures there are also gifts included for the child. With lots of advance planning, the morning unfolds in organized chaos, with each child sent home with wrapped presents for their families and a new appreciation that police are great men and women who truly care about their wellbeing.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 43% for direct work, and 57% for 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.2%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 79.2%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.94 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 96.8%; rating input score 97; 56th 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: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -7.9%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 14.08; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.9% per year; rating input score 0; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 14 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 93.2% of revenue deployed · 79.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $295K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 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: 11 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 11 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 22/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 25/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.