Gracewater

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
824425191
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2022
Location
Yazoo City, MS, USA
Phone
6625718861
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$441,973
Expenses
$417,288
Assets
$78,080
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NICK KING (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • NICK KING (PRESIDENT)
  • DANIEL COLE (SECRETARY)
  • ROGER JONES (DIRECTOR)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is simply to give grace with water. We are driven by the desire to help communities experience god's grace through the gift of water. 783 million people and millions of communities around the globe are in a water crisis! We are passionate about being a part of the solution, as well as pursuing our mission to educate their community about the love of christ. Through the drilling of wells in communities, we found a need for orphan training and have begun to help train and equip them in discipleship and life skills.

What it reported doing in 2024

Grace institute is a program where we train orphans in the trade of farming. These young men are recommended to the program by pastors who gracewater has partnered with in drilling water wells. The young men come to the grace institute farm for 12-18 months and learn farming skills and are discipled by our chaplain. Our goal is to equip them with a trade and lead them deeper in their faith.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 43% for direct work, and 57% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.1%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 98.6%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.6%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.19; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 33.9% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.1% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -12.4% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 93.1% of revenue deployed · 98.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $411K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 52/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.