Clean Caribbean Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
650270063
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA
Phone
9546581319
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$75,655
Expenses
$133,567
Assets
$790,976
Liabilities
$668,460

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PAUL SCHULER (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • VICTORIA BROJE (DIRECTOR, CHAIR)
  • DAVID FULWIDER (DIRECTOR, VICE CHAIR)
  • JOSH SOYBEL (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. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To help preserve the environment by promoting oil spill preparedness, response and restoration capacity building in the caribbean, the americas and worldwide, through programs of education, training, drills and exercises, workshops and technical forums, and national contingency planning, and to develop liaisons, communications, information exchange and enhanced response cooperation, coordination and mechanisms with regional governments, oil industry, academia, and non-governmental organizations.

What it reported doing in 2025

Provided funding to complete the scientific analysis of sediment samples extracted during the 2024 visit of the tropical oil pollution investigations in coastal systems (tropics) project site in panama, and to produce and publish the final report on the project. Funding was provided through contributions totaling $75,000 received from research partner bureau of safety and environmental enforcement u.s. Dept of interior. Total expenditures of $88,495 for the project were recorded as cost of sales rather than regular expenses. There were additional expenditures in the amount of $7,316 to fund travel for dr. A. Renegar to deliver presentations on the project at the interspill conference in england (april) and the international technical advisory committee (itac) oil spill response conference in france (october).

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 99% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 81.5%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -76.5%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.92; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.85; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -17.2% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -30.9% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -18.1% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 81.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $109K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.