Inter-tribal Council Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
730791683
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Miami, OK, USA
Phone
9185424486
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,270,729
Expenses
$2,875,674
Assets
$1,254,501
Liabilities
$509,006

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DOUGLAS LANKFORD (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DOUGLAS LANKFORD (PRESIDENT)
  • WENA SUPERNAW (VICE PRESIDE)
  • GLENNA WALLACE (SECRETARY/TR)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To enlighten the public toward a better understanding of the native american race, to preserve andpromo te native american cultural values and to enhance general educational and economic opportunities among members of the tribes of northeastern Oklahoma. Typically the tribes comprising membership of the inter-tribal council, inc. Provide opportunities for sharing their culture through pow-wows and cerimonial events held within the communities of northeast Oklahoma. Events such as the miami tribe's annual gathering and the quapaw's 4th of july weekend annual pow-wow are some of the examples of events which draw thousands of visitors to the region to experience the culture of the local tribes. In addition, the local tribes partner with miami chamber of commerce and neo a&m college to sponsor events and activities that entertain and educate the vistors who come to the region.

What it reported doing in 2024

Planning and development: this department consists of the eda planning grant and native employment works (n.e.w.) and wioa/adult; wioa/youth training grants which provided employment assistance, educational and supportive services that will result in sustainable employment and increased earnings; increased educational and occupational skills; and decreased welfare dependency for native americans in the service area of northeast Oklahoma. Funding for this department comes through grants from the department of commerce/eda; department of labor/division of indian and native american programs, and department of health and human services. During fy 2024, the wioa adult comprehensive services program and supplemental youth program assisted 30 individuals with work readiness activities through work experience, tuition and books, subsidized employment services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 65% 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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 38
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 41.4%; rating input score 41
  • Program expense ratio: 47%; rating input score 47
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.1%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.44; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.41; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.9% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 41.4% of revenue deployed · 47% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 47/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.