Minorities in Shark Sciences Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 852192211
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2022–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2021, Form 990-T 2021, Form 990-N 2020
- Location
- Bradenton, FL, USA
- Phone
- 5106888511
- Rating
- 72
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Education N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $682,304
- Expenses
- $585,033
- Assets
- $540,250
- Liabilities
- $2,119
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JASMIN GRAHAM (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- JASMIN GRAHAM (CEO): $57,000 total reported compensation
- AMANI CAROLYN WEBBER-SCHULTZ (CFO): $4,293 total reported compensation
- CARLEE JACKSON (DIRECTOR): $1,827 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Miss provides a community and funding opportunities for women of color who wish to enter the field of shark sciences. We aim to show that there are many women of color succeeding in and interested in this field. We fundraise and apply for grants to create paid opportunities to attempt to knock down the financial barrier into shark sciences. We encourage other organizations in our field to do the same.
What it reported doing in 2025
Bio leaps: the field of shark research suffers from a number of issues that have led to a culture and climate that is unwelcoming and inaccessible for many scientists and, in particular, historically and contemporarily excluded individuals. The american elasmobranch society (aes) represents a collective of shark researchers in north america, and as such, this problematic culture can be pervasive within the society itself. However, aes is not unique in facing such challenges as a society. A culture that excludes historically and contemporarily minoritized individuals has been reported for many small-to-medium-sized societies of this nature. Despite the issues aes and other societies face, aes has a tradition of leading the way with change, and thus we propose to lead in the creation of culture change that can then be extended to other small-to-medium-sized societies. Specifically, through this design proposal, we seek to 1) provide a more welcoming and safe meeting for aes and similarly sized societies, accomplished through changes to the guiding documents and policies of aes; 2) see culture change within aes that facilitates diversity in membership, accomplished through intensive training and a train-the-trainer model; and 3) provide the resources to help affordably create change in similar societies, accomplished through a network approach, piloted here.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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 a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 64
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 57
- Sustainability: 54
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 67.9%; rating input score 68
- Program expense ratio: 79.2%; rating input score 79
- 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: 57.1%; rating input score 57; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: 14.3%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.92; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 11%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 23.2% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 27.5% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 37.5% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 67.9% of revenue deployed · 79.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 7 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 16 filed program accomplishments · $463K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $57K · 8 people listed
- Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
- 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 57/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.