Oklahoma Methodist Foundation

Legal name: The Oklahoma United Methodist Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
730758119
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2007
Location
Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Phone
4058965016
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,970,261
Expenses
$4,223,991
Assets
$480,116,754
Liabilities
$436,667,218

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BILLY MEADE (PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID BATTLES (EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • BILLY MEADE (PRESIDENT): $313,643 total reported compensation
  • DAVID BATTLES (EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT): $284,518 total reported compensation
  • ALAN HERNDON (DIRECTOR OF GIFT PLANNING): $179,425 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To create and administer permanent charitable endowments to strengthen Methodist ministries in Oklahoma.

What it reported doing in 2024

Provided $144,000 funds to the Oklahoma United Methodist Circle of Care, Inc. to support foster care ministry and Pearls Hope Transitional Living Program for single mothers. Pearls Hope provides financial, educational, and familial resources to secure and maintain housing on their own. Pearls Hope serves women who are working to improve their lives or the lives of their children after intervention by the OK Department of Human Services. Remaining funds were for general support.

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 58% for direct work, and 42% for 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 the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 70
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 46%; rating input score 46
  • Program expense ratio: 78%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 71.4%; rating input score 71; 19th 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: 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: 29.2%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 113.66; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.91; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.5%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 46% of revenue deployed · 78% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported · 0 of 6 affiliation controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $3.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $314K · 22 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 32 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 27 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 46/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.