Arctic Native Brotherhood Club

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
920041200
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Nome, AK, USA
Rating
51
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Cultural, Ethnic Awareness

Reported finances

Revenue
$130,414
Expenses
$123,232
Assets
$41,374
Liabilities
$42,746

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Robert Fegerstrom (President)
  • Joleen Oleson (Vice-President)

Highest reported compensation

  • LeAnne OConnor (Manager): $24,038 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Consistent with the Charter, the primary goal and oblective of the Arctic Native Brotherhood shall be to provide support for the educational, cultural, health, death benefits and other related needs of the members decendants of members and other family members of the ANB

What it reported doing in 2014

Assistance to those families who have lost loved ones or sustained damage or loss from fire or natural disasters.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 35
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 18
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.7%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 1.7%; rating input score 2
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0.06 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.5%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.34; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.03; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.5%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 200% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.2% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0% per year; rating input score 0; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61.7% of revenue deployed · 1.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 7 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $2K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $24K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2011 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.