Haw River Assembly Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581510282
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Bynum, NC, USA
Phone
9195425790
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Water Resource, Wetlands Conservation and Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$397,564
Expenses
$586,399
Assets
$1,982,682
Liabilities
$47,413

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • AYO WILSON (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ELAINE CHIOSSO (PAST EXEC DI): $87,727 total reported compensation
  • EMILY SUTTON (EXECUTIVE DI): $71,611 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Haw river assembly was founded in 1982 to protect the waters of the haw river, jordan lake and tributaries. We advocate for clean water and conduct educational programs, stream monitoring, river clean-ups, and other activities that engage volunteers and the public.

What it reported doing in 2024

Water quality monitoring program: the haw river watch program trains and equips volunteers to evaluate water quality in creeks and river sites in the haw river watershed. We teach volunteers to monitor and identify sources for sediment in our streams through the muddy water watch program. In addition, we collect water samples for analysis of industrial contaminants, cafo nutrients, and micro-plastics. We test popular swimming sites on the haw river and jordan lake for e-coli levels each week during the summer and publish the results in our online swim guide. Volunteers also assist us in installing and maintaining trash traps on urban streams to remove single use plastics and other trash. 261 vounteers took part in these pollution monitoring, clean up, and restoration programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 85% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 91%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.94 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -47.5%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.38; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 27.2%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.6% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.5% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.5% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 91% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $534K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $88K · 19 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 39/100.