Secore International Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
475385160
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2015
Location
North Canton, OH, USA
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,164,670
Expenses
$2,256,855
Assets
$3,059,354
Liabilities
$500,802

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dick Petersen (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Dick Petersen (Executive Director): $152,894 total reported compensation
  • Margaret Miller (Director): $115,661 total reported compensation
  • Aric Bickel (Director): $109,175 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Creating and sharing the tools and technologies to sustainably restore coral reefs worldwide. A world where thriving coral reefs support healthy oceans for future generations.

What it reported doing in 2024

SECORE work is centered on the pillars of Research, Technology, and Implementation. Our unique approach of Coral Seeding combines assisted sexual reproduction with applicable, scalable, and sustainable restoration technologies. SECORE drives its implementation through a worldwide network of partners in more than 10 countries.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 84% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 91% 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 program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 41
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.8%; rating input score 49
  • Program expense ratio: 66.7%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $31.26 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 28.7%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.36; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.7%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.2% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 21.3% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 27.1% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.8% of revenue deployed · 66.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $153K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 49/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.