H2o for Life

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
260338552
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
White Bear Lake, MN, USA
Phone
6517567577
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,071,356
Expenses
$665,323
Assets
$478,814
Liabilities
$26,314

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • DOUG NIEMELA (EXECUTIVE DI): $93,165 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

H2o for life educates, engages and inspires youth, k-12, to learn about the global water crisis while taking local and global action. Schools partner with a school in a developing country and provide funds to support implementation of water, sanitation and hygiene in service-learning opportunities focused on global water crisis.

What it reported doing in 2024

Fifty nine schools participated this year, along with eleven other community partners. Staff delivered fifty-nine direct presentations to our schools, nine monthly seminars to our high school fellows, and presented at five educational conferences. We supported thirty eight high school fellows as they led projects at their school and explored careers in water advocacy. Our mini-grant program allocated 4,450 to nine schools, and they raised 11,397 to go towards wash projects globally. New stem and climate science lessons were created to further engage our schools in wash education.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 87% 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 - 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 the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 46.2%; rating input score 46
  • Program expense ratio: 74.3%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.94 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • 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: 83.2%; rating input score 83; 35th 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 37.9%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.72; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.1% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.5% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 46.2% of revenue deployed · 74.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $494K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $93K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 46/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 34/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.