Oceanic Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
990109952
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Waimanalo, HI, USA
Phone
8082597951
Rating
57
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Marine Science and Oceanography

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,976,473
Expenses
$3,152,481
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHAUN M MOSS (ACTING PRESIDENT & CEO OF SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMS)
  • JANET S KLOENHAMER (CEO OF ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHAUN M MOSS (ACTING PRESIDENT & CEO OF SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMS): $176,563 total reported compensation
  • CHENG SHENG LEE (DIRECTOR, CTSA): $115,449 total reported compensation
  • JANET S KLOENHAMER (CEO OF ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE): $78,102 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

For the advancement and extension of research in all of the fields and areas of marine sciences generally and to engage in, assist and contribute to the support of scientific, educational, and charitable activities and projects, and to contribute to the support of, and to create and maintain scientific, educational and charitable institutions, organizations and funds for every kind.

What it reported doing in 2013

Aquatic feeds & nutrition program (afn program) - the goal of the afn department is to develop practical feeds to support sustainable food production globally, but with a more recent emphasis on Hawaii and us-affiliated pacific islands. Local aquaculture and terrestrial animal production in the pacific region is limited and contributes to a very small portion of overall food supply. Imported animal products pose a major challenge to food security and food safety for these island communities. This is an especially critical issue in times of food shortages, energy crises, and global climate change. Afn research is focused on identifying, defining, and testing locally available plant and animal by-products for their nutritional composition and bioavailability in terrestrial and aquatic animal feeds. Utilization of co-products or by-products from agriculture, biofuel and fishery processing industries for feed production is also one of the major research focuses. Afn research seeks to define nutrient requirements of local aquaculture species which are cultured in Hawaii and the us-affiliated pacific islands, including pacific threadfin (moi) and pacific white shrimp. Animal feeds research includes processing research to produce nutritionally complete diets for evaluation, and testing the effectiveness of feeds produced on a commercial pilot scale through collaboration with university and commercial partners. Accomplishments for the past year include the development of locally made diet formulations for abalone (enzo), opihi (limpet), tilapia, and pacific threadfin (moi). Recent research has shown that our locally made formulation for abalone is competitive to imported feed, which is imported from south africa. We have also established low fishmeal formulation for moi culture and a non-fishmeal shrimp feed by using duckweed protein. In addition, selective local ingredients with significant local production have been tested for their nutritional compositions and digestibility in tilapia.

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 94% 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

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 63
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 9
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 49.3%; rating input score 49
  • Program expense ratio: 46.6%; rating input score 47
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Pass
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 48.6%; rating input score 49; 13th 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; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5.9%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.7%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -20.5% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -25.7% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 49.3% of revenue deployed · 46.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $177K · 11 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $474K reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 34 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2009 to 2013
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 49/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.