Western Alaska Community Development Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205912530
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Anchorage, AK, USA
Phone
9077714210
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,004
Expenses
$2,197
Assets
$8,185
Liabilities
$14,900

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Angel Drobnica (President)
  • Jeff Kauffman (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Simon Kinneen (Director)
  • Ragnar Alstrom (Sec/Treas)
  • Michael Link (Director)

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

Overview

Mission

The Western Alaska Community Development Association was organized in 2006 pursuant to section 305(i)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to govern the six Community Development Quota (CDQ) groups in Western Alaska.

What it reported doing in 2024

A. Further the Goals of the CDQs program as set forth in Section 305(i)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA).B. Act as the CDQs program panel: A. Administer those aspects of the CDQ program not specifically addressed in MSA; and B. Coordinate and facilitate activities of the entities under the CDQ program.C. Act as a trade association for community development quota corporations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 26.9%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.73; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.82; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -42.8% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -19.3% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.