Klamath-siskiyou Wildlands Center
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 931246139
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Ashland, OR, USA
- Phone
- 5414885789
- Rating
- 79
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Garden Club, Horticultural Program
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $841,049
- Expenses
- $770,840
- Assets
- $972,720
- Liabilities
- $48,722
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MICHAEL DOTSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- MANUEL DE AQUINO (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- MICHAEL DOTSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $91,000 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
KS Wilds mission is to protect and restore wild nature in the Klamath-Siskiyou region of southwest Oregon and northwest California.
What it reported doing in 2024
Rogue Riverkeeper: Our Rogue Riverkeeper program downsized in 2023, as long-standing grantors and foundations pulled back support following the completion of our campaign on Jordan Cove LNG. However, our personnel still managed to advocate for, and support, measures that promote clean water and fish habitat. Rogue Riverkeeper worked with community members to officially name and protect Blue Heron Creek in Phoenix. We also sought and received protection for a springs complex in the same area that would have been paved and built upon. The unhoused population living along riparian areasespecially along Bear Creek continues to be a challenge that crosses jurisdictions and authorities. As a small non-profit organization, Rogue Riverkeeper participated in collaboratives like the Bear Creek Restoration Initiative where partners including Jackson County and other city representatives work to protect the ecological function of Bear Creek and its riparian area while supporting humane and safe conditions for all community members. We helped pass the Living with Beaver bill that will help private landowners improve waterways and wetlands in the state. Jet boats on the Upper Rogue remained a challenge. Aside from our standard water quality oversight work, Rogue Riverkeeper spent a significant amount of time focused on a community engagement effort around jet boat usage in the upper Rogue River, near Medford. Through a partnership with the state of Oregon and Portland States Oregon Kitchen Table, Rogue Riverkeeper was part of a months-long community engagement project to collect and gather input on recreation and conflicts along a stretch of the upper Rogue where jet boats have been seen more and more. At the heart of the issue was a commercial operator who was working out of a state park without special use permits. Several hundred individuals participated in community meetings and public comment periods to address the impacts of jet boats on the stretch of the Rogue, and Oregons Kitchen Table published a report that helped the Oregon State Marine Board create new guidelines and rules for the use of jet boats in the Rogue River near TouVelle State Park. Rogue Riverkeeper also participated in limited lobbying efforts at the state level, when we helped secure new protections for beavers in Oregon. Rogue Riverkeeper staff sent out numerous action alerts and submitted public testimony at the Oregon statehouse in support of measures that would restrict beaver trapping on public lands throughout the state of Oregon.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 61
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 52
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 64.2%; rating input score 64
- Program expense ratio: 70.1%; rating input score 70
- Fundraising efficiency: $5.62 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 21; 21st 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: 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: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 8.3%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.26; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 11.8%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 64.2% of revenue deployed · 70.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $541K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $91K · 9 people listed
- Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 21/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.