The Coleopterists Society

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
364762341
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
3143231497
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$137,278
Expenses
$129,595
Assets
$1,330,651
Liabilities
$60

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PAT BOUCHARD (PRESIDENT)
  • MAXWELL V L BARCLEY (PAST PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MATTHEW GIMMEL (MANAGING EDITOR): $16,800 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. 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 2025

Research and education - 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).

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 71% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 61% for direct work, and 39% for grants.

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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.4%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 81.5%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: 87.8%; rating input score 88; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.6%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 10.27; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.4% of revenue deployed · 81.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $106K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $17K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.