Searles Valley Historical Society Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
953459494
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2014, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Trona, CA, USA
Phone
7603725222
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$70,829
Expenses
$51,835
Assets
$629,581
Liabilities
$129

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Jeff Schwartz (Fire trucks supervisor)
  • Cathy Heseman (Vice Presnewsletterdocent)
  • Rose Ann Austin (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Preserve the history of Searles Valley and surrounding areas in the upper Mojave desert area.Its primary purpose is to bring together people interested in history, especially in the history of Searles Valley and surrounding regions for future generations.

What it reported doing in 2025

Educational tours are geared towards students in the primary grades to instill a sense of pride in Trona by educating the local students in the history of Trona. The Searles Valley Hisotrical Society also encourages local schools to visit the historical buildings in Searles Valley. The opening of he museums and the caboose to the students for viewing is also offered. A scavenger hunt is also offered to the students to test their knowledge of the history of Searles Valley. The Tufa House Yard was cleaned, trees all trimmed and the windows were boarded up and a fence was put up around the property. A plaque will be put up to explain about the Tufa House and the Shed that is located on the property. This property will not be open to the public but will be a place of historic interest to view from outside of the fence.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 83% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
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 available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 41
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 39.3%; rating input score 39
  • Program expense ratio: 59.2%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 19th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 26.8%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 12.15; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -18.2% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 39.3% of revenue deployed · 59.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 120 of 120 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $31K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2015 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 39/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.