Alaska Community Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
920073911
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Palmer, AK, USA
Phone
9077465680
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,116,530
Expenses
$4,088,581
Assets
$1,234,550
Liabilities
$996,295

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Patrick Shiflea (Associate Direc): $156,111 total reported compensation
  • Curt Christiansen (Executive Dir.): $141,257 total reported compensation
  • Patrick Ian Sharrock (Inspector): $136,365 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 assist low income individuals and families with housing and housing improvements in Alaska.

What it reported doing in 2024

Weatherization: ACDC provides weatherization assistance in the copper River Basin, Kenai Peninsula Borough, Kodiak Island Borough, Lake and Peninsula Borough, Mat- Su Borough, many Southeast Alaska communities, the Taylor Highway System, and the Tok area. The weatherization program provides home weatherization for low-to-moderate-income households who own or rent eligible homes: apartments, cabins, condominiums, houses, mobile homes, and multi-family dwellings (duplexes and larger) in order to bring homes up to safe, healthy, and energy-efficient standards.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99.7%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 0.7%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.3; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.81; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.6%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -10.5% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -10.5% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.9% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 99.7% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $4.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $156K · 10 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $1.2M reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • 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: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.