Association for the Study of Women and Mythology

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
455141964
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Brooklyn, NY, USA
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Corporate Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$77,147
Expenses
$77,957
Assets
$102,219
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Sid Reger (President)
  • Mary Jo Neitz (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Sid Reger (President)
  • Mary Jo Neitz (Vice President)
  • Joan Cichon (Board Member at Large)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We are the Association for the Study of Women and Mythology a 501c3 nonprofit member organization. Our mission is to support scholarly and creative endeavors that elucidate aspects of the sacred feminine women and mythology.

What it reported doing in 2025

Zoom salons: Scholar Salons are invited presentations by major scholars and researchers in which they discuss their work with ASWM members. Salons are offered as a member benefit. We do not schedule Salons with individuals whose work has been submitted in the same cycle for our awards program. In addition to contributions of foremothers and established scholars Salons also focus on important emerging work by doctoral students artists and award winners.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 66% for direct work, and 34% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Assets have declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.1%; rating input score 64
  • Program expense ratio: 63.4%; rating input score 63

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.31; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 50.7% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -8.3% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 64.1% of revenue deployed · 63.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $49K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • 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.

  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.