West Virginia Forestry Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
550545829
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Charleston, WV, USA
Phone
6812655019
Rating
48
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Forest Conservation

Reported finances

Revenue
$319,441
Expenses
$274,671
Assets
$596,579
Liabilities
$38,531

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOSEPH MCNEEL (PRESIDENT)
  • ANTHONY RAINES (FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT)
  • TOM CRICKENBERGER (SECOND VICE-PRESIDENT)
  • AARON PLAUGHER (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • ROBERT BOYLES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JAMES SMITH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBERT BOYLES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $90,000 total reported compensation
  • KAYLA SPRINGER (SECRETARY/TREASURER): $37,500 total reported compensation
  • JAMES SMITH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $7,500 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To educate the community & members about forestry activities, including protection of the environment and forest enhancement through multiple-use management.

What it reported doing in 2025

Wv tree farm encourages private forest landowners to manage and protect their woodlands for the continuous production of forest products with with all the added benefits of improved food and habitat for wildlife, watershed protection, and opportunities for outdoor recreation.

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 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

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 38
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 68
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 39.8%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 47.3%; rating input score 47
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 14%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.17; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 49.1%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -10% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.2% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 39.8% of revenue deployed · 47.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $130K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $90K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.