Northern California Botanists

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205183839
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2010
Location
Chico, CA, USA
Phone
5305705196
Rating
39
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Botanical Gardens, Arboreta and Botanical Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$26,445
Expenses
$70,577
Assets
$112,374

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JANE VAN SUSTEREN (President)
  • NICOLE JURJAVCIC (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • JANE VAN SUSTEREN (President)
  • RUSSELL HUDDLESTON (Secretary)
  • GAIL KUENSTER (Treasurer)

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

Northern California Botanists is an organization with the purpose of increasing knowledge and communication among agency, consulting, academic, and other botanists about botanical issues concerning science, conservation, education, and professional development. Our primary objectives are to establish a communication forum via occasional meetings, a scholarship fund for students working on botanical problems in northern California, a job forum, and symposia that focus on the botany of northern California.

What it reported doing in 2025

14 scholarships/5 grants/1 award

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -166.9%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.59; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $2 in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.