Oklahoma Proton Center
Legal name: The Oklahoma Proton Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 844765097
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2021–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Aug 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- OKC, Oklahoma, US
- Phone
- 405.253.0154
- Rating
- 62
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Hospital, Specialty
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $34,389,036
- Expenses
- $35,764,784
- Assets
- $83,335,626
- Liabilities
- $91,187,744
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- Anna Stidham (Radiologist): $396,714 total reported compensation
- Yi Le (Director of Physics): $274,841 total reported compensation
- Thanh Nguyen (Physicist): $198,535 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To provide advanced proton therapy and comprehensive cancer care, focusing on precision treatment that maximizes quality of life for patients.
What it reported doing in 2025
The Oklahoma Proton Center, LLC, wholly owned by the Foundation, is a cancer center that has successfully treated thousands of patients from all over the United States and from fifteen different countries. Its doctors have experience treating patients with a wide variety of conditions, including breast cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, head and neck cancer, pediatric cancers, liver cancer, esophageal cancer and many other diagnoses. The facility features four treatment rooms with advanced in-room imaging capabilities.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 98% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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
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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 78
- Transparency & Controls: 60
- Accountability: 37
- Sustainability: 31
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 88.1%; rating input score 88
- Program expense ratio: 86.7%; rating input score 87
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- 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; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 88
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Limited
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -4%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.33; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.09; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.4%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 12.5% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 12 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 88.1% of revenue deployed · 86.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 6 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $31M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $397K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $10.6M reported
- Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.