Maritime Cybersecurity Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
934892415
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Beaufort, SC, USA
Phone
6302725500
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Reported finances

Revenue
$30,946
Expenses
$280,895
Assets
$476,533
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Rick Siebenaler (CEO)

People named in this filing

  • Rick Siebenaler (CEO)
  • Brian Shea (Director)
  • Taylor Jackson (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

The Maritime Cybersecurity Institute is dedicated to addressing the urgent need for robust cybersecurity measures in the commercial maritime sector. With an ever increasing dependence on digital technologies and interconnected systems the maritime sector has shown itself as being vulnerable to cyber threats and attacks. Our vision is a world class engine for the maritime transportation ecosystem focused on providing or stimulating cybersecurity education research experimentation investment and commercialization of products with regional and national impacts.

What it reported doing in 2025

The organization sponsored the 2nd annual CyberBoat Challenge event. The Challenge brings college students and industry participants together in a multi-day cyber hacking event. The purpose is to train and educate the college students on maritime cybersecurity technology risks while also creating career path interests in the students. Industry participants of the event gain insight into the same risks while mentoring and fostering relationships with the college students

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 89% 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. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 52
  • Accountability: 51
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 64.5%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 24th 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: -807.7%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.7; rating input score 35; 35th 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: 139% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -186.3% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -41.6% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 64.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $181K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 40 of 41 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.