Shaw Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
010455007
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Blue Hill, ME, USA
Phone
2073742135
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Quality, Protection, and Beautification N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$539,358
Expenses
$583,626
Assets
$939,647
Liabilities
$295,222

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • CHARLES ROLSKY (EXECUTIVE DI): $138,572 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To discover and expose environmental threats to people and wildlife through innovative science and to engage in global partnerships to improve human and ecological health. The institute produces scientific research that drives change and inspires solutions to pressing environmental health issues.

What it reported doing in 2024

Research, outreach & education - the institute continues to expand its research programs locally and globally. Focus areas include: human exposure, plastics & microplastics, climate change in the gulf of Maine, and chemical threats to health and environment. Shaw scientists translate and disseminate research findings to state and national policymakers and the public in support of legislative initiatives to protect the environment and public health. Shaw's lecture series, website, social media, and internship program increase public awareness and understanding of the impacts of harmful exposures to plastics, microplastics and toxic chemicals, and the human and ecologic impacts of climate change.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% 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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.3%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 57.1%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -8.2%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.61; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.31; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.7%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61.3% of revenue deployed · 57.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $333K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $139K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 18/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.