Impact Water Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
933787225
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4154845260
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,232,725
Expenses
$7,526,582
Assets
$1,102,651
Liabilities
$526,798

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • EVAN HAIGLER (CEO & BOARD)

Highest reported compensation

  • EVAN HAIGLER (CEO & BOARD): $261,630 total reported compensation
  • TIMOTHY NEVILLE (CSO & BOARD): $236,619 total reported compensation
  • MARK W HUELSENBECK (COO): $210,985 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To make safe drinking water available to as many students as possible through scalable and lasting solutions, ensuring every student can learn and thrive with safe water. See schedule o.

What it reported doing in 2024

Impact water nigeria operates the largest country program, serving 14.7 million students across 38,855 schools in 27 states through chlorine tablet systems and inline chlorination. Our nigeria program demonstrated remarkable expansion in 2024, installing water treatment systems in 21,065 schools across 12 new states while upgrading nearly 7,000 existing schools to improved inline chlorinators. The program maintained consistent field operations across all states despite significant security challenges in northern regions including katsina, kaduna, gombe, and niger states, where few international organizations operate. Our ability to sustain services across 27 states demonstrates commitment to reaching last-mile communities where the need for safe water interventions is greatest.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 61% 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.3%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 87.1%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0.16 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 6 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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; 72nd 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: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.6%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.15; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.48; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.5%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 195.2% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 179.3% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.3% of revenue deployed · 87.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $6.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $262K · 5 people listed · 6 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.