Cook Inlet Tribal Council
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 920094184
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Anchorage, AK, USA
- Phone
- (907) 793-3000
- Rating
- 72
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Ethnic, Immigrant Centers
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $64,349,016
- Expenses
- $66,450,836
- Assets
- $127,497,371
- Liabilities
- $22,051,180
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
32 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Gloria O'Neill (President/CEO)
- Kyan Olanna (Vice President)
Highest reported compensation
- Gloria O'Neill (President/CEO): $873,192 total reported compensation
- Jennifer Mitchell (CFO): $611,612 total reported compensation
- Kyan Olanna (Vice President): $565,153 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 work in partnership with our people to achieve our shared vision of healthy, culturally connected communities.
What it reported doing in 2024
Clare swan early learning center - combining the strengths of the early head start educational model, the clare swan early learning center provides for the needs of working families beyond simple child care. Over 30 staff members come together to implement the research-based early head start curriculum that emphasizes the importance of responsive and caring relationships to support the optimal development of infants and toddlers. This is a critical component of our program. Clare swan early learning center also provides child development information and performs periodic assessments to track children's development through their stages of growth. Our center encourages families to participate in their child's education as well as supporting our families' goals.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 71% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 73% for direct work, and 27% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 66
- Transparency & Controls: 94
- Accountability: 52
- Sustainability: 35
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 74.9%; rating input score 75
- Program expense ratio: 72.1%; rating input score 72
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 17.6%; rating input score 18; 9th 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: -3.3%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.92; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 7.9%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
- Where the money goes: 74.9% of revenue deployed · 72.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 3 of 17 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 9 filed program accomplishments · $47.9M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $873K · 32 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.3M reported
- Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 48 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 30 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.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 18/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.