Sailors for the Sea Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510506943
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Newport, RI, USA
Phone
4018468900
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Water Resource, Wetlands Conservation and Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,447,716
Expenses
$1,423,338
Assets
$689,900
Liabilities
$125,003

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • R MARK DAVIS (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • R MARK DAVIS (PRESIDENT): $291,920 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Sailors for the sea unites boaters around the world to protect the ocean. The ocean is in crisis and it needs powerful, well-educated advocates to stand up for it. We choose to focus on a sophisticated and influential constituency that loves the water and through our programs and communication efforts we empower boaters to become catalysts for change. Sailors for the sea is a global organization headquartered in newport, Rhode Island. We have three affiliates; sailors for the sea japan, sailors for the sea portugal and sailors for the sea chile.

What it reported doing in 2017

Kids environmental lesson plans (kelp): the kids environmental lesson plans (kelp) program was created to help educate children ages 6 to 16 about ocean health issues and increase environmental awareness and stewardship. Sailors for the sea collaborates with leading marine science institutions to create these dynamic and relevant lesson plans that are based on the seven principles of ocean literacy and adhere to the next generation science standards (ngss). Kelp modules are easy to teach, fun and created for informal educators.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 60% for direct work, and 40% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 63
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.7%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 59.6%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.84 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 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: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 1.7%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.48; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.5%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.3% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.7% of revenue deployed · 59.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $848K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $292K · 13 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2010 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 23/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.