Bear Paw Development Corp
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 810302638
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Havre, MT, USA
- Phone
- 4062659226
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Economic Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,495,201
- Expenses
- $2,767,821
- Assets
- $20,358,223
- Liabilities
- $1,822,481
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
24 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DOUG KAERCHER (PRESIDENT)
- JIM GHEKIERE (VICE PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- PAUL TUSS (ED): $111,535 total reported compensation
- STEFNIE REDDING (DOO): $78,763 total reported compensation
- PATRISHA CICHOSZ (LOAN OFFICER): $68,154 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 company's primary function is the encouragement of economic development in hill, blaine, liberty, phillips and chouteau counties of Montana.
What it reported doing in 2025
Small business development center activities. Bear paw development corporation serves as the host for one of ten small business development centers located throughout Montana. Funding through a variety of sources allows bear paw development to hire an individual responsible for assisting small business owners and aspiring entrepreneurs with assistance in developing business plans, finance strategies, and marketing opportunities. In 2025 the sbdc at bear paw development counseled 68 distinct clients, which resulted in over $627,160 in financing from local banks and other sources. This funding helped to start 3 new businesses, while supporting 57 jobs.st. Mary rehabilitation working group activities. Bear paw development corporation serves as fiscal agent for this group of concerned entities in the milk river basin that has organized to expedite the rehabilitation of the st. Mary conveyance works and canal system, which delivers water for irrigation, recreation, and municipal use to a broad area of northern Montana. The group consists of representatives from municipalities, conservation groups, irrigation districts, and others, and works with the state and federal officials, in an attempt to secure funding for this aging infrastructure, which was developed nearly 100 years ago.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 84% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- 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
STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 60
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 78
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 52.2%; rating input score 52
- Program expense ratio: 91.8%; rating input score 92
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 49.6%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.36; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 9.3%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 13.5% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 52.2% of revenue deployed · 91.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $112K · 24 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $179K reported
- Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.