Hydrating Humanity Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201624084
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2009
Location
Winston Salem, NC, USA
Phone
7046343903
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Religion Related N.E.C.
Affiliation
Religious (unspecified)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,090,836
Expenses
$1,190,415
Assets
$509,843
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Matthew Peterson (President - Director)
  • Joshua Young (Vice President - Program Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Patrick Selvey (Sec/Treasurer - International Director): $115,116 total reported compensation
  • Joshua Young (Vice President - Program Director): $111,544 total reported compensation
  • Matthew Peterson (President - Director): $31,008 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Humanitarian Development and Relief. Primarily thru training exercises in Africa teaching locals to solve development problems and improve lives both physically and spiritually. Our top activities include constructing water wells and teaching hygiene.

What it reported doing in 2025

Constructed 143 new clean water sources in Kenya & Tanzania. Maintained and/or repaired hundreds of pumps. International Director (ID) lives in East Africa full time training indigenous workers to drill wells, protect springs, and teach hygiene and water collection. ID is the purchasing agent for the grants we give Hydrating Humanity Registered Trustees (our Kenya Partner). A truck mounted drill rig is part of our Operations. In addition we purchased a second Drill rig and a second upport truck $300k expense.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 80% of its reported program spending out as 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 the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.1%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 76.1%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5,373.58 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Pass
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 45.7%; rating input score 46; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 62.5%; rating input score 62; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -9.1%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.43; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.6%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.9% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.5% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.1% of revenue deployed · 76.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $906K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $115K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 25 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.