A funding review/comparison on our site was mentioned above:
This was just updated since the URL was first posted above. An update had begun in the fall but had never been completed and uploaded. It now goes through last season.
The graphs are based on the annual reports of the centers and do not include in-kind support. Most reports separate that and in the odd case where it was in their total it was subtracted for this paper. In the case of Colorado a grant specifically for services to CDOT was also subtracted and is not included in the annual totals.
It turned out that the Utah figures included the Moab and Logan areas for some years and not others. Whether or not these are included in the annual report and how has not been consistent over the years. The current charts include only the Salt Lake (central Wasatch) budget, any years that preciously included the other areas have been corrected.
Re: The comparison to Utah. There was a spike in funding due to the Olympics, so their total was higher due to that for a couple years. That was short-term funding which is no longer available now that the Olympics is over. That money did help produce many things, particularly on the website, that still offer ongoing public benefits.
Re: most of the NWAC funds being for salaries. This is true of most or all centers. Since their overhead is taken care of in the uncounted in-kind support the funding reflected in the graphs and in their annual reports is primarily salary. Travel probably makes up a similar small percentage of the budget for all centers. I don't know how much is to provide services to organizations, but a lot of what is spent on travel is probably for the ISSW every two years, AAA meetings, meetings between the centers, etc.
The main page which has links to actual online annual reports is also updated:
While the NWAC reports were once notoriously difficult to obtain they have the most recent several years worth online in pdf now.
I just wanted to let anyone interested know that this was updated and that some figures previous to the update may have been off base or mis-interpreted for one reason or another. This was overdue to be updated and hopefully anyone referring to it now will have a better picture of the overall budget situation and comparisons than before.
There are variations in the centers (number of staff, services provided, etc) so this should be kept in mind when making comparisons. Colorado in particular is much different. The CAIC is a state agency and a large part of its mission is providing services to CDOT. (Exclusively, afaik CDOT does not duplicate this expense by directly hiring avalanche personnel.)