Marine Bio-technologies Center of Innovation (Mbcoi)

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
455491911
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Wilmington, NC, USA
Phone
9109623267
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Biological & Life Sciences

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$481,284
Expenses
$430,654
Assets
$231,703
Liabilities
$11,633

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • DEBORAH A MOSCA PHD (CHAIRMAN & C): $121,238 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To facilitate collaboration on emerging marine biotechnologies between and among universities, scientific researchers, industry, and funding organizations to commercialize new scientific discoveries for the economic benefit of the state of North Carolina.

What it reported doing in 2016

The corporation initially funded by appropriations from the North Carolina general assembly, is established to assist the state government of North Carolina in the expansion of the state's long-standing life sciences initiative by working with public and private universities and other scientific research institutions and other private organizations to help focus North Carolina-based scientific research in promising marine bio- technologies and to encourage and facilitate the commercial application of such technologies in ways that will sustain and diversify the state's economy in the future and provide productive employment, particularly in the distressed coastal area of eastern North Carolina.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.2%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 61.7%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.53 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

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: 80%; rating input score 80; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.5%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.54; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 28.2%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -19% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -22.9% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -21.5% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.2% of revenue deployed · 61.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $266K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $121K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2012 to 2016
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 17/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.