Plastic Ocean Project

Legal name: The Plastic Ocean Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
461251038
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2022, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Wilmington, NC, US
Phone
910-660-8090
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$237,608
Expenses
$218,530
Assets
$190,784
Liabilities
$42,513

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jenna Haverstock (President)
  • Tricia Monteleone (Vice President)
  • Bonnie Monteleone (Former - Executive Director)
  • Emily Mulvihill (Executive Director Assistant)

Highest reported compensation

  • Emily Mulvihill (Executive Director Assistant): $36,403 total reported compensation
  • Kayla West (Lab Director): $27,495 total reported compensation
  • Bonnie Monteleone (Former - Executive Director): $7,666 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 attain science-based solutions to the plastic pollution crisis that inspire all to make informed choices to improve human and environmental health.

What it reported doing in 2024

Outreach through art, creating art with trash with children and community members that are put on display to educate the community about plastic pollution.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% 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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 46
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 45.7%; rating input score 46
  • Program expense ratio: 49%; rating input score 49
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.95 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 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: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.87; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.22; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 35.7%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -20.5% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 10 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 45.7% of revenue deployed · 49% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $107K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $36K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 46/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 49/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 36/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.