Northeastern Regional Association of Coastal Ocean Observing Systems

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
264607435
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Portsmouth, NH, USA
Phone
6033191785
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Marine Science and Oceanography

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,426,193
Expenses
$7,469,343
Assets
$2,478,536
Liabilities
$1,579,779

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAKE KRITZER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • RHONDA MONIZ (PRESIDENT)
  • NICOLE BARTLETT (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JAKE KRITZER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $220,332 total reported compensation
  • ROB CARDEIRO (FINANCE DIRECTOR): $180,641 total reported compensation
  • TOM SHYKA (DIRECTOR OF TECHNOLOGY): $113,842 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The northeastern regional association of coastal and ocean observing systems' (neracoos) mission is to produce, integrate and communicate high-quality information that helps ensure safety, economic and environmental resilience, and sustainable use of the coastal ocean.

What it reported doing in 2024

Neracoos monitors the ocean in the northeastern region, an area that stretches from the gulf of Maine to long island sound. This is a large, dynamic environment that changes continuously. People who work and play on the water, as well as those who live in coastal communities, depend on the data and forecasts we provide to make sound decisions. People use our products to decide when to bring large oil tankers into port, where to go for the best waves for surfing, and whether it's safe to go fishing. In addition, scientists and meteorologists use our data to better understand and predict what's happening in the ocean - such as storms, sea-level change, animal migrations, and harmful algae blooms. We deliver all this information to help protect lives and property, empower coastal economies, and improve the health of our oceans.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 97% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 79% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 95
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.5%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 94.9%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: $637.9 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th 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: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Pass
    • Conducts field audits: Pass
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.7%; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.6%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.33; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.64; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.4%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.5% of revenue deployed · 94.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $7.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $220K · 24 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 21 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 17 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.