Kenai Watershed Forum

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911829284
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Soldotna, AK, USA
Phone
9072605449
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$911,748
Expenses
$956,884
Assets
$1,211,950
Liabilities
$140,070

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVE ATCHESON (Vice President)
  • MATTHEW PYHALA (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • TRENTEN DODSON (Executive Dir.): $89,983 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Kenai Watershed Forum (KWF) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization whose mission is working together for healthy watersheds on the Kenai Peninsula. KWF is recognized as the regional watershed organization of the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, successfully identifying and addressing the needs of the region by providing high quality EDUCATION, RESTORATION, and RESEARCH programs. KWF was founded in 1997 by a group of local citizens concerned about the health of the Kenai River Watershed. In recent years, KWF has expanded our scope to encompass the entire Kenai Peninsula. KWF utilizes a non-adversarial philosophy in our approach to fulfilling our mission.

What it reported doing in 2025

Kenai watershed forum is a citizens based organization dedicated to maintaining the health of kenai peninsula watersheds through education, research and restoration programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 62% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.4%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 74.5%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $38.61 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -5%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.27; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.4%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.3% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.4% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 78.4% of revenue deployed · 74.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $712K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $90K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.