Barrow Arctic Science Consortium

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
920158733
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2010
Forms available
Form 990 2010
Location
Barrow, AK, USA
Phone
9078524881
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,800,382
Expenses
$3,018,869
Assets
$952,203
Liabilities
$304,121

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2010. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2010. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote arctic research in barrow by science and industry. Collect, preserve, and disseminate arctic research information.

What it reported doing in 2010

Provided support activities to scientific groups, organizations, and individuals. Provided logistical services and local facilities and laboritories, offices, and equipment for science projects conducted in the arctic.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 84% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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

- 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: 90
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

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

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 20.6%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.32; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.32; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.2%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $142K · 19 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.