Helping Hands for Water Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 271881326
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2012–2012
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2012
- Location
- Buford, GA, USA
- Phone
- 6785702491
- Rating
- 86
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Limited
- Sector
- International Relief
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,713
- Expenses
- $931
- Assets
- $782
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Helping Hands for Water believes that all people worldwide are entitled to safe drinking water. The mission of Helping Hands for Water (HHFW) is to stewart our time, talent, and resources to assist under resourced communities in The United States and developing countries in need of available safe drinking water.
What it reported doing in 2012
Arsenic Water Treatment System for San Antonio de los Cobres in Argentina. San Antonio de los Cobres faced a challenging arsenic concentration of up to 290 ppb in its water supply. It needed a solution to reduce the level to below the maximum contaminant level set by the World Health Organization (WHO) of 10 ppb. The remote town of 6,000 people has high rates of diseases that could be the result of exposure to high levels of arsenic in drinking water. The greatest threat to public health from arsenic comes from drinking water contaminated with arsenic. Arsenic poisoning, or arsenicosis, characteristically occurs over a period of five to 20 years. According to WHO, this exposure is associated with several chronic effects, such as skin problems, skin cancer, cancers of the bladder, kidney and lungs, and diseases of the blood vessels of the legs and feet. In November of 2011, Helping Hands for Water in conjunction with His Heart Mission ( a non-profit organization) installed succesfully an arsenic water treatment system for a community of 6,000 residents in the Andes Mountains in Argentina reducing arsenic levels from up to 290 ppb to less than 5 ppb.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 100
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 56
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 45.7%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.84; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: Limited
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $75K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 8 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 1 filed schedules
- 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.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.