Coastal Carolina Riverwatch Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 582198018
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2024–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2023
- Location
- Morehead City, NC, USA
- Phone
- 3363303140
- Rating
- 47
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Animal-Related N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $313,934
- Expenses
- $285,420
- Assets
- $290,809
- Liabilities
- $29
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Jan Farmer (President)
- Tancred Miller (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- Jan Farmer (President)
- Tancred Miller (Vice President)
- Susan Land (Treasurer)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Coastal Carolina Riverwatch CCRW is a dedicated grassroots initiative shaped by the voices of coastal residents working collaboratively to safeguard clean water and vital marine ecosystems. This work is powered by the generosity of supporters and carried out by a highly efficient and skilled team. A committed leadership group leading experts in science and research engaged local officials and industry professionals volunteer legal advisors experienced captains and pilots academic collaborators sustainable business leaders and passionate local stewards all play a crucial role in achieving CCRWs mission.
What it reported doing in 2025
The 2024 Water Quality for Fisheries Symposium successfully facilitated cross-sector dialogue on water quality issues affecting coastal fisheries.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 79
- Accountability: 88
- Sustainability: 52
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 2nd 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- 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: 9.1%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.02; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -200% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 16.6% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 30.3% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
- Consistency: 27 of 42 current checks pass · 15 findings to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Advertising column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ConferencesMeetings column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX DepreciationDepletion column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLobbying column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesManagement column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesOther column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Interest column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherSalariesAndWages column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PayrollTaxes column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Travel column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.