Shinnecock Kelp Farmers
Legal name: Shinnecock Kelp Farmers Incorporated
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 883011968
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2023–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2022
- Location
- Southampton, NY, USA
- Phone
- 6318750271
- Rating
- 68
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $239,935
- Expenses
- $249,318
- Assets
- $402,398
- Liabilities
- $78,319
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- TELA TROGE (BOARD MEMBER): $70,868 total reported compensation
- DONNA COLLINS SMITH (BOARD MEMBER): $29,275 total reported compensation
- DANIELLE HOPSON BEGUN (BOARD MEMBER): $23,913 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
We are a multi-generation collective of Indigenous women who are enrolled members of the Shinnecock Indian Nation, leveraging our 10,000+-year-old traditional relationship with the sea and with seaweed to capture carbon and nitrogen that has poisoned the waters of Shinnecock Bay and beyond. All while laying the groundwork for green jobs on the East End.
What it reported doing in 2024
The shinnecock kelp farmers continued to expand indigenous-led kelp restoration efforts through cultivation, deployment of marine lines, and community-based stewardship practices. Public engagement grew through widespread media coverage in nationally and internationally recognized outlets, helping to raise awareness of the environmental and cultural importance of indigenous aquaculture and coastal restoration.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 81% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 76
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 26
- Sustainability: 33
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 86.7%; rating input score 87
- Program expense ratio: 83.2%; rating input score 83
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 62
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Limited
- 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: -3.9%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.61; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 64.6%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -1.5% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 52.3% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 86.7% of revenue deployed · 83.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $208K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $71K · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 5 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.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.