Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 270603627
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Seattle, WA, USA
- Phone
- 206-783-0188
- Rating
- 40
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Labor Unions
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $554,683
- Expenses
- $644,703
- Assets
- $337,981
- Liabilities
- $6,139
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
23 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Jamie Goen (Executive Director)
- Mike Shelford (Director, Vice President)
- Gabriel Prout (Director, President)
Highest reported compensation
- Jamie Goen (Executive Director): $253,634 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 be vigilant stewards of the crab resource and the environment, provide economic stability to the crab industry and Alaska's coastal communities, support sound science and management, promote safety at sea, and produce premier crab products for American and global customers.
What it reported doing in 2024
The Association advocates for crab harvesters at local, regional, and federal levels working for sound policies and sustainable management of crab fisheries. The Association, under leadership of its Board of Directors, communicates with Membership through meetings, events, and via email. During this fiscal year, the Association continued its advocacy efforts in Washington DC focusing on fishery disaster requests and process improvements; a fix to proposed tender vessel requirements; crab rationalization program buyback loan refinancing; illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) crab; and maintaining a ban on Russian seafood imports. The Association also worked at the local and regional level to help crab stocks recover, open fisheries, support crab research, and gain a voice on the Fishery Management Council.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 67% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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
MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 65
- Accountability: 84
- Sustainability: 21
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
- 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -16.2%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.52; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 39.3%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $254K · 23 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 10 of 26 current checks pass · 16 findings to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Advertising column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ConferencesMeetings column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesAccounting column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLegal column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLobbying column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherEmployeeBenefits column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherSalariesAndWages column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PayrollTaxes column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PensionPlanContributions column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Travel column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.