Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association APICDA

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
920143609
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Juneau, AK, USA
Phone
9075860161
Rating
57
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$15,040,906
Expenses
$8,501,563
Assets
$207,246,056
Liabilities
$2,831,002

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Luke Fanning (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Luke Fanning (CEO): $639,713 total reported compensation
  • Angela Drobnica (Dir of Governme): $329,243 total reported compensation
  • Grant Mirick (COO): $300,409 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Economic Development and Financial Assistance for the benefit of various southwestern Alaska Villages.

What it reported doing in 2025

APICDA provided financial assistance to various organizations in Southwest Alaska through: Community Development - Accounts for all of the activities associated with various community development projects in the coastal areas of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands of Alaska. It includes evaluation of requests for assistance and distribution of grants and other forms of assistance.Operations - Accounts for the activities that promote local economic development in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands area of Alaska including fisheries development and protection.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 94% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 76% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 38
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 37
  • Sustainability: 82
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 35.3%; rating input score 35
  • Program expense ratio: 56.6%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 93.5%; rating input score 93; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 43.5%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 24.38; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.2%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 35.3% of revenue deployed · 56.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $640K · 20 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $123K reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 54 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 33 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 35/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.