Alaska Wilderness League

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521814742
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2025445205
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,009,193
Expenses
$3,578,388
Assets
$10,749,946
Liabilities
$1,236,012

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KIT DESLAURIERS (PRESIDENT)
  • JOHN STERLING (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KRISTEN MILLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • KRISTEN MILLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $209,015 total reported compensation
  • MLADEN MATES (SENIOR DIRECTOR OF FINANCE): $147,882 total reported compensation
  • ANDREW MODEROW (SENIOR DIRECTOR OF POLICY): $124,750 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Protect Alaska's wild lands and waters by inspiring broad support for federal policy action.

What it reported doing in 2024

Tongass - in southeast Alaska, the tongass national forest has already transitioned to a post-clear cut logging economy, but for the past decade, policies of the government have lagged behind. After achieving stronger protections in years past, today awl is focused on protecting the roadless rule's applicability in the forest, and the transition away from large scale, clear cut old growth logging. To achieve this goal, and to keep public lands public in the region, awl works closely with partners both nationally and in Alaska to push back against any legislation that would privatize public lands in this forest.rapid defense - defending Alaska's public lands requires constant attention. Some threats like drilling the arctic refuge are high profile, and garner public scrutiny that awl will help to support through their long running advocacy efforts described above. However, other threats to the integrity of Alaska's public lands are not as obvious, through the legislative process or via administrative action. With awl's policy expertise and office in Alaska, awl is well equipped to analyze public land threats statewide, while awl simultaneously works to influence federal decisions in Washington, dc.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 94% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.6%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 69.7%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.21 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.2%; rating input score 98; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.7%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.8%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 64.6% of revenue deployed · 69.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $209K · 22 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $279K reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 7 filed related-organization links
  • 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.