Clark Fork Coalition

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
363428665
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Missoula, MT, USA
Phone
4065420539
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,500,027
Expenses
$2,561,483
Assets
$4,465,828
Liabilities
$1,040,243

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DANIEL KIELY (PRESIDENT)
  • KATELYN HEPBURN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • BRIAN CHAFFIN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • KAREN KNUDSEN (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • KAREN KNUDSEN (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $80,051 total reported compensation
  • BRIAN CHAFFIN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $78,279 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

See schedule o for full description of the organization's mission.

What it reported doing in 2024

Middle clark fork: in the middle clark fork the coalition is fostering and advocating for a water ethic that makes cleanup, restoration, and protection of community waterways a central goal in the face of lingering contamination, rapid growth, and landscape change. The coalition is focused on three campaigns in this region: cleanjup of the shuttered smurfit-stone pulp mill site, restoration of lower grant creek, and river-smart planning for the urban river corridor in missoula. At smurfit, the coalition is advocating for timely and scientifically sound cleanup of hazardous waste dumps, removal of crumbling berms, and restoration of the floodplain. At grant creek, the coalition is implementing a community-driven vision for restoring the creek in advance of development planned for the area. On the urban river corridor, cfc is promoting river-smart planning and watershed literacy through dynamic education and outreach programs and through promoting planning principles that make protection of waterways a central goal.

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 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.8%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 82.7%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $26.57 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings

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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.5%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.74; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.2%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.8% of revenue deployed · 82.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $80K · 14 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $285K reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 25/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 46/100.