Warriors Ascent

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471029701
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
Phone
8168009276
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$602,797
Expenses
$543,249
Assets
$381,842
Liabilities
$4,875

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Matt Panther (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Mike Kenny (Executive Dir.): $91,530 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Empower Those Who Serve to Heal and Thrive

What it reported doing in 2025

Warriors Ascent is a 501c3 nonprofit organization that helps veterans and first responders struggling with posttraumatic stress. We've run 72 5-day retreats cohorts serving nearly 730 people in the last 9+ years. Our retreats cohorts are offered at no charge to veterans and first responders. We empower our participants to take ownership of their lives and healing by providing the tools to heal and tend the mind, body, and soul. Bottom line: We save and change lives. Warriors Ascent uses a holistic approach employing cognitive behavioral instruction, yoga, meditation, mindfulness, nutrition, cathartic activities, and community. Ours is a capacity building model in that we endeavor to work ourselves out of a job by providing Americas heroes with the skills and practices for selfcare, healing, and posttraumatic growth.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 84% 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: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.7%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 72.6%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.37 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th 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: 90%; rating input score 90; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: 9.9%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.7; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.8%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.3% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.7% of revenue deployed · 72.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 10 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $376K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $92K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 13/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.