Big Lake Community Council Non Profit Corporation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 811737114
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2024
- Location
- Big Lake, AK, USA
- Phone
- 9074143359
- Rating
- 56
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $219,575
- Expenses
- $36,104
- Assets
- $0
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JODI RIDDEL (PRESIDENT)
- HELEN STIENINGER (VICE PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- JODI RIDDEL (PRESIDENT)
- HELEN STIENINGER (VICE PRESIDENT)
- DAVID HAGGARD (DIRECTOR)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To represent and advocate for the interests of Big Lake residents by providing a forum for community participation in local affairs.
What it reported doing in 2025
Community Meetings & Public Participation The Council organized and conducted regular public meetings to provide residents with a forum to discuss community issues, share inform -ation, and engage with local government representatives.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Affiliate-supported. 70% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
MIXED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 66
- Transparency & Controls: 36
- Accountability: 82
- Sustainability: 54
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 58.3%; rating input score 58
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 55.6%; rating input score 56; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- 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: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 83.6%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 58.3% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 11 current checks pass · 4 findings to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX GrantsToDomesticOrgs column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Series program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.