Tulsa Bird Dog Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 900785193
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2015–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024
- Location
- Tulsa, OK, USA
- Phone
- 9188355016
- Rating
- 85
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Animal-Related N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $18,718
- Expenses
- $22,552
- Assets
- $8,853
- Liabilities
- $163
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MICK GILL (VICE PRESIDENT)
- LARRY NAAS (PRESIDENT)
- GENE GRAY (VICE PRESIDENT)
- PHIL SINOR (VICE PRESIDENT)
- JAMIE BROOKS (VICE PRESIDENT)
- DAN MORGAN (VICE PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- MICK GILL (VICE PRESIDENT)
- PRESTON SMITH (TREASURER)
- LARRY NAAS (PRESIDENT)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Upland hunting education and conservation
What it reported doing in 2024
Other programs: tbda holds monthly meetings for members with various guest speakers and publishes "covey rise," a monthly newsletter with information about upland hunting and hunting dogs.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 69% 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 98
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 28
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 95.3%; rating input score 95
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -20.5%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.39; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -6.3% per year; rating input score 0; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 36th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 95.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $21K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.