Sonoma County Mycological Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 680486141
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2015–2023
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2023
- Location
- Santa Rosa, CA, USA
- Phone
- 7073265211
- Rating
- 66
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $121,821
- Expenses
- $100,753
- Assets
- $110,798
- Liabilities
- $1,270
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Justin Reyes (Vice President)
- Ken Buegeleisen (President)
- Ryath Beauchene (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- Justin Reyes (Vice President)
- Melanie Perkins (Secretary)
- Elissa Callen (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
SOMA is an educational public benefit corporation dedicated to the study and research of mycology to encourage public education and the unique and beneficial role fungi play in maintaining the health of our woodland system.
What it reported doing in 2023
In the fiscal year we consulted with Hospital Emergency Health Care Personnel to assist in identification of wild mushrooms as possible cause of patient poisoning. In addition we awarded 22 scholarships ranging from $500 to $2500 to Ph.D. and Graduate students, and community scientists. SOMA led 9 forays to collect and identify wild mushrooms and 8 educational lectures attended by about 1500 members of the public. Our organization held a 4-day Wild Mushroom Camp in January consisting of 9 forays, with DNA analysis and photography of wild mushrooms found. 40+ educational lectures, workshops, and demo's, for 325 people.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 83% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 58% for direct work, and 42% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - 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: 51
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 64
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 46.8%; rating input score 47
- Program expense ratio: 56.6%; rating input score 57
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 17.3%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.1; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 16.5% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 46.8% of revenue deployed · 56.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $57K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2015 to 2023
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 47/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.