Seward Association for the Advancement of Marine Science

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
920132479
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Seward, AK, USA
Phone
9072246300
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,560,249
Expenses
$13,689,115
Assets
$36,260,126
Liabilities
$2,887,574

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

Leadership & pay

36 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WEI YING WONG (CEO & PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • WEI YING WONG (CEO & PRESIDENT): $222,955 total reported compensation
  • BRAD RYAN (EXECUTIVE VP/DEPUTY DIRECTOR): $147,857 total reported compensation
  • JOHN FRASER (CHIEF MISSION OFFICER): $143,158 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 Alaska sealife center generates and shares scientific knowledge to promote understanding and stewardship of Alaska's marine ecosystems.

What it reported doing in 2024

Research program: a cold water marine research facility that conducts research into the biology, physiology, and ecology of marine mammals, seabirds, and fish in Alaska's arctic and subarctic waters, with the goal of generating scientific knowledge that informs resource management and conservation policy. The center's unique combination of cold-water research facilities, live animal collections, and specialized staff enables scientists to use both experimental and field-based methods to investigate the physiological and ecological processes affecting marine animal populations. This also includes the activities of the north pacific marine research institute.

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 85% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.8%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 78.7%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.65 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 83.1%; rating input score 83; 17th 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; 66th 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: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -9%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.65; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.7%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.8% of revenue deployed · 78.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 30 of 30 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $10.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $223K · 36 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.4M reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 12 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 38/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.