Malama Manoa

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
990300334
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2018, Form 990-N 2011
Location
Honolulu, HI, USA
Phone
8087215483
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$63,312
Expenses
$29,015
Assets
$627,255
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Thom Benedict (President)
  • Pi'ikea Miller (1st Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Thom Benedict (President)
  • James P Hasselman (Treasurer)
  • Janyce Mitchell (Secretary)

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

Malama manoa's primary exempt purpose is to preserve and encourage the preservation of historic buildings, objects, and sites relating to the history of manoa valley, oahu, state of Hawaii; to educate and involve the general citizenry of Hawaii in the historical, cultural, visual, economic, and architectural heritage of manoa valley; and to keep alive and intact for the enrichment of present and future generations the uniqueness of manoa and its historic role in the development of the city of honolulu and its cultural impact on the state of Hawaii.

What it reported doing in 2025

Preservation of historic buildings, objects and sites in Manoa, Hawaii. Education in historic, cultural, visual, economic and architectural heritage through community meetings, outreach, newsletter publications, and other means.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 72% for direct work, and 28% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 63%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 19th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 54.2%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 21.62; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58% of revenue deployed · 63% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $18K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.