Headwaters Economics Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
743171967
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Bozeman, MT, USA
Phone
4065997425
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Land Resources Conservation

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,143,592
Expenses
$3,075,096
Assets
$4,242,050
Liabilities
$238,411

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CARMEN MCSPADDEN (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • PATRICIA HERNANDEZ (Executive Dir.): $182,830 total reported compensation
  • KELLY POHL (ASSOC. DIRECTOR): $154,053 total reported compensation
  • NATHAN KOMMERS (MEDIA RELATIONS): $141,608 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Headwaters economics, inc. Is an independent, nonprofit research group. Our mission is to improve community development and land management decisions.

What it reported doing in 2025

Headwaters Economics conducts independent research, develops practical tools, and works directly with communities to advance data-driven solutions for economic resilience and risk reduction. In 2025, our team delivered more than 65 briefings and presentations to elected officials, agencies, and community leaders, directly reaching more than 6,000 people. Our research was featured in more than 2,100 media stories and disseminated through dozens of original reports, peer-reviewed publications, interactive data tools, podcasts, and newsletters. See more at www.headwaterseconomics.org. Providing Economic Insights for Stronger CommunitiesClear, accessible economic data helps local leaders make better decisions. In 2025, we: Updated and maintained the Economic Profile System (EPS), a free tool delivering customized economic and demographic reports for communities, counties, Tribal areas, states, and regions used by planners, agencies, and local governments nationwide.Enhanced the Rural Capacity Map, an interactive tool identifying where staffing and expertise gaps limit communities' ability to pursue infrastructure and risk-reduction projects, and published peer-reviewed research on its utility for improving access to grants.Published a report identifying concrete strategies for rural communities to secure local benefits from large-scale development projects.Published a synthesis documenting how Montana Community Foundation used data to expand outreach to rural and Tribal communities.Strengthening the Outdoor Recreation Economy & Public LandsOutdoor recreation and public lands are significant economic drivers in communities across the West and beyond. In 2025, we: Delivered localized economic analyses and recommendations for economic development and outdoor recreation projects in Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, and Vermont.Published a report examining how wildfire risk and development constraints will limit housing options on public lands.Updated two widely used data visualizations illustrating visitation trends and economic contributions of national parks and outdoor recreation at the state level.Maintained three web-based data tools used by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Forest Service to support land management, planning, and community engagement.Reducing Risk and Increasing Community StabilityAs disasters grow more frequently and costly, communities need rigorous, independent analysis to make informed decisions. In 2025, we: Provided technical assistance to 40 communities in 14 states to support wildfire and flood risk-reduction.Published a report finding that more than 1,100 communities across the U.S. face wildfire risk comparable to recent urban disasters, equipping planners and policymakers with data to prioritize action.Published a peer-reviewed journal article and companion report documenting how wildfire insurance market disruptions cascade into local and state budget pressures research informing legislative and regulatory discussions.Published analyses showing that building wildfire-resistant structures after disasters could save billions of dollars, and that next-generation wildfire risk models must account for the built environment.Released a report demonstrating that reclaiming abandoned mines can reduce harmful and costly flood disasters, providing a concrete strategy for community protection.Published findings that states must modernize stream crossing standards to protect communities from flooding, and a separate report on wildfire strategies for historic buildings.Co-hosted a Tribal Emergency Manager Summit convening leaders from a five-state region to strengthen cross-jurisdictional coordination.Conducted an independent evaluation of the USDA Forest Service's Community Wildfire Defense Grants (CWDG), assessing its effectiveness in reaching high-need communities.Maintained and expanded widely used public data tools, including Wildfire Risk to Communities (in partnership with the

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: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.7%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 90.5%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $184.7 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 77.8%; rating input score 78; 15th 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.2%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.38; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 30.8%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.7% of revenue deployed · 90.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $183K · 14 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.