Red Cloud Renewable
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 811578843
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2022–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2019, Form 990-N 2020
- Location
- Pine Ridge, SD, USA
- Phone
- 6058675940
- Rating
- 70
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Energy Resources Conservation and Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,115,724
- Expenses
- $2,286,903
- Assets
- $2,214,460
- Liabilities
- $44,356
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- HENRY RED CLOUD (PRESIDENT/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- JOHN RED CLOUD (VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS)
Highest reported compensation
- JOHN RED CLOUD (VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS): $69,221 total reported compensation
- CHERYL FOX (SECRETARY/DIRECTOR OF FINANCE): $64,578 total reported compensation
- HENRY RED CLOUD (PRESIDENT/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $47,450 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Empowering native american communities from across the country by fostering career readiness pathways in the clean energy industry, with energy sovereignty initiatives, workforce development training, and sustainable building deployment.
What it reported doing in 2025
Our sustainable building program tackles the housing crisis on pine ridge with innovation and respect for the land. One of the ways we do this is by constructing durable, hexagon-shaped homes made from cellular concrete - a material that allows entire homes to be built fairly quickly. These homes are designed to provide safe, efficient, and affordable housing solutions while setting a new standard for sustainable living on the reservation.in addition, we work with compressed earth block (ceb) construction, using natural materials from the land itself to build strong, beautiful homes and community structures. Together, these approaches bring immediate relief to the housing shortage while honoring a vision of resilience and self-sufficiency.
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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 62
- Transparency & Controls: 87
- Accountability: 62
- Sustainability: 28
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 67.1%; rating input score 67
- Program expense ratio: 62.1%; rating input score 62
- Fundraising efficiency: $10.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -8.1%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.97; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 7.9%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 34.5% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 22.3% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 24.1% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 67.1% of revenue deployed · 62.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 6 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $69K · 9 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $530K reported
- Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 5 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 36/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 41/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.