Center for Snow and Avalanche Studies

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043737768
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2022
Location
Silverton, CO, USA
Phone
9703875080
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$226,558
Expenses
$233,493
Assets
$202,934
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

People named in this filing

  • TANYA PETACH (Director)
  • DAVE KANZER (DIRECTOR)
  • FRANK KUGEL (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. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Research and education

What it reported doing in 2025

Colorado Dust on Snow (CODOS) programCSAS provided regional field monitoring and analysis services regarding the effects of desert dust deposition in Colorado mountain snowpacks to ten regional water management agencies (units of state and local government), Colorado Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Geologic Survey, National Weather Service and other stakeholders throughout the winter and spring of 2025/2026. Executive Director Derry devoted 62.5 % to CODOS activities in FY2526.Research SupportCSAS provided direct field research support services to researchers from Boise State University, NASA-SnowEx campaign, Utah State, USGS, CRREL, CU, CSU, and NASA Jet Propulsion Lab team during FY2526. CSAS provided data and operated field instrumentation for these hosted researchers. CSAS also provided data for research projects and scientific articles to other teams in the US and abroad. Executive Director Derry devoted 4.5% to CSAS Research Program activities during FY2526.EducationCSAS typically supports an undergraduate field course for the University of Colorado Colorado Springs, SUNY-Geneseo, Minnesota University, and conducts its own field class for four Colorado water management professionals. We also hosted a snow/dust conference this year. The Executive Director spent 4.0% on education efforts in FY2526.Mountain System MonitoringCSAS maintained its Mountain System Monitoring infrastructure and program activities at the Senator Beck Basin Study Area at Red Mountain Pass throughout FY2526, continuously collecting weather, snowpack, soils, radiation, and stream flow measurements 24/7/365 and publishing those data, as archived datasets, on its open access website for K-12 schools, undergraduate and graduate student, researcher, agency, and other researchers investigating the effects of climate change on mountain systems. Public, open access to near-real-time hourly data from the Senator Beck Basin was also maintained in FY2526 on the CSAS website and used by the Colorado Avalanche Information Center highway safety program, the National Weather Service, other regional snow safety professionals, local water management agencies, and the general public. Executive Director Derry devoted 20.1% to monitoring operations and MSM program activities in FY2526.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 97% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.9%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 74.6%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3.1%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.87; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.6% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76.9% of revenue deployed · 74.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 8 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $174K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 13 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.