Makivik Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
980105409
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Ville St Laurent, Quebec, CA
Phone
5147458880
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,525,784
Expenses
$6,748,928
Assets
$925,909,281
Liabilities
$254,254,740

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Moorhouse Andy (Director): $176,094 total reported compensation
  • Adams Peter (Director): $158,066 total reported compensation
  • Aragutak Alicia (Director): $148,158 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 relieve poverty and promote the welfare advancement and education of the inuit. To foster promote, protect and assist in the preserving the inuit way of life, values and traditions. To initiate, expand and develop opportunities for the inuit to participate in the economic development of their society. To develop and improve the inuit communities and improve their means of action. To assist in the creation, financing or development of businesses, resources, properties and industries of the inuit.

What it reported doing in 2024

Social Housing Program The Construction Division of Makivik Corporation receives funding from both the governments of Canada and Quebec for the construction of social housing for residents of Nunavik (that area of the province of Quebec north of the 55th parallel). During the course of the fiscal year, the Corporation, through its not-for-profit Construction Division, built social housing units in five communities of Nunavik. The social housing program managed by the Corporation aims to build quality low cost housing while at the same time providing training and employment to apprentice carpenters residing in Nunavik and to the greater extent possible providing economic spinoffs to the regional businesses and organizations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 45% for direct work, and 55% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 23
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 81.3%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 35.9%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 137.19; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.2%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 81.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 21 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $5.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $176K · 21 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes foreign activity, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 28 filed money-flow records
  • 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 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.