Georgia Rural Water Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581373517
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Barnesville, GA, USA
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,802,104
Expenses
$2,323,736
Assets
$2,066,825
Liabilities
$9,585

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMES R MATTHEWS Jr (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • RICK JEFFARES (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DOUG ANDERTON (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JAMES R MATTHEWS III (FINANCE DIRECTOR): $161,177 total reported compensation
  • BRENT B MATTHEWS (COORDINATOR): $161,177 total reported compensation
  • JAMES R MATTHEWS Jr (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $157,452 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organizations primary purpose is to assist rural water systems in complying with the state safe dirnking water act through class workshops, technical assistance and sewer leak detection.

What it reported doing in 2020

The federal and state subsidized programs provide technical assistance to rural water systems in the areas of leak detection, ground water, lead and other hazardous chemicals. Also, the organization subsidizies fluoride equipment to water systems in need.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 65% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 47
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.4%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 81.3%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 78.6%; rating input score 79; 0th 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 17.1%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.89; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.6%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.4% of revenue deployed · 81.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $161K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 30 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2012 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D expense reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.