The Coleopterists Society

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237319132
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Santa Barbara, CA, USA
Phone
8056824711
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Biological & Life Sciences

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$96,525
Expenses
$112,318
Assets
$668,039
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Victoria Bayless (President)
  • Christopher E Carlton (President 2013-2014)
  • Derek S Sikes (President Elect 2015-2016)

People named in this filing

  • Victoria Bayless (President)
  • Christopher E Carlton (President 2013-2014)
  • Derek S Sikes (President Elect 2015-2016)

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 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The objective of the Society is the advancement of the science of Coleopterology in all its aspects of theory and practice, with emphasis on areas of common interest to all Coleopterists regardless of individual specialization. The Society is organized and operated exclusively for scientific and educational purposes including the fostering of collaboration and communication among Coleopterists, recognition of accomplishments by Coleopterists, and the publication of Coleoptera-related research.

What it reported doing in 2015

Bulletin Production - Published issues of scientific journal "The Coleopterists Bulletin" (ISSN 0010-065X) totalling 608 published pages. Copies are mailed to members and institutional subscribers (mostly academic libraries). Authors of articles pay page charges to partially offset the costs of publication, and may order additional reprints of articles for an additional fee. Additionally, the Society occasionally makes small donations to other non-profit organizations that support activities directly related to the mission of the Society, including other groups that promote the scientific study of insects. Also, awards are made to members in recognition of excellent publications on beetles, recognizing papers based on master's and doctoral theses, and the best paper published in "The Coleopterists Bulletin" each year (as judged by the editorial board). Youth incentive awards are made to teens recognizing completed science projects involving beetles. Awards consist of a small honorarium and a display plaque.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 67% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 88% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 62
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.7%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 75.4%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.19 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 84.4%; rating input score 84; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 25th 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: -16.4%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.95; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -10.4% per year; rating input score 0; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.7% of revenue deployed · 75.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $85K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2013 to 2015
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 16/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.