Redoil Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
262650809
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2011–2015
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Anchorage, AK, USA
Phone
9077500188
Rating
89
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$166,172
Expenses
$121,959
Assets
$95,697
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • FAITH GEMMILL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/VICE CHAIR)

People named in this filing

  • FAITH GEMMILL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/VICE CHAIR)
  • GLEN LANKARD (SECRETARY & TREASURER)
  • ROBERT THOMPSON (CHAIRMAN)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Educate people about energy exploration and extraction on or near the lands and waters of indigenous peoples, protect indigenous lands, waters and peoples from the harmful effects thereof, and to promote sustainable indigenous communities and traditional indigenous culture and values.

What it reported doing in 2015

Promote education and awareness in regard to unsustainable fossil fuel and mineral extraction on or near indigenous lands in Alaska, promotion of sustainable energy for tribes as an alternative to unsustainable energy extraction and development, and education and awareness of climate justice issues in Alaska.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.8%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 97.8%; rating input score 98

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 26.6%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.78; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 34.2%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.7% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.5% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 26.3% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71.8% of revenue deployed · 97.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $119K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2011 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.