Inuit Circumpolar Council-Alaska

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
920091959
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Anchorage, AK, USA
Phone
9072749058
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Cultural, Ethnic Awareness

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$924,143
Expenses
$908,454
Assets
$1,616,672
Liabilities
$343,033

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARIE GREENE (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • KELLY ENINGOWUK (EXECUTIVE DI): $171,708 total reported compensation
  • MARIE GREENE (PRESIDENT): $131,640 total reported compensation
  • VIVIAN KORTHUIS (SECRETARY/TR): $1,500 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Icc Alaska exists as the unified voice and collective spirit of alaskan inuit, to promote, protect and advance inuit culture and society.

What it reported doing in 2025

Inuit engagement in the central arctic ocean fisheries agreement (caofa) implementation. On june 25, 2021, the agreement to prevent unregulated high seas fisheries in the central arctic ocean (caofa) entered into force. The agreement is the first of its kind, a multilateral and legally binding agreement, that calls for taking a precautionary approach to protect and prevent unregulated fishing in the high seas portion of the central arctic ocean. The agreement recognizes the interests of arctic indigenous peoples and the importance of involving them and their communities. Indigenous knowledge (ik), alongside science is also recognized and will be included. The united states has included alaskan inuit as a part of the delegation. Facilitation and coordination of alaskan inuit from the north slope, northwest arctic, bering strait, and yukon kuskokwim delta regions in Alaska, has been done by inuit circumpolar council (icc) Alaska.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 47
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 52.3%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 52.6%; rating input score 53
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 27th 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.7%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.78; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 33.7%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 52.3% of revenue deployed · 52.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $478K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $172K · 18 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 52/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.