SEE Research and Development Farm

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
463941866
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2014–2015
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Kula, HI, USA
Phone
8088950977
Rating
89
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,250
Expenses
$3,170
Assets
$80
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Remigio Y Sabado (President)
  • Michael Zelko (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Remigio Y Sabado (President)
  • Michael Zelko (Vice President)
  • Donna Ebberson (Secretary/Treasurer)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide healthy, nutritious food to Maui residents through C.S.A. farmer development and field test programs using a production model of Sustainable, Equitable, Economics (S.E.E.). Guided by values based in social equity, environmental balance and economic prosperity, we are proving that organic production is the best, most affordable, most equitable solution to provide food for the people of Hawaii.

What it reported doing in 2015

Farmer development and field testing begun.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 99
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 97.5%; rating input score 98
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.5%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.03; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 200% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 198.7% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 200% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 97.5% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2014 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 51/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.