Monterey Bay Aquarium

Legal name: Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942487469
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Monterey, CA, US
Phone
831.648.4800
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$208,135,651
Expenses
$123,526,913
Assets
$837,664,477
Liabilities
$23,191,407

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

38 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JULIE PACKARD (VICE CHAIR & EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRISTINA FEKECI (CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER): $474,067 total reported compensation
  • JULIE PACKARD (VICE CHAIR & EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $470,646 total reported compensation
  • BRADLEY RUTHERFORD (EXEC VP AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR): $468,836 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To inspire conservation of the ocean.

What it reported doing in 2024

Animal care and aquarium experiencesee schedule o for full description

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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 96
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.9%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 81.4%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.41 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 95.2%; rating input score 95; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 40.7%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.78; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.3%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 54.9% of revenue deployed · 81.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 18 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $100.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $474K · 38 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $24.8M reported
  • Consistency: 45 of 46 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 11 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 19 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.