Impact Water Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
742504163
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
San Antonio, TX, USA
Phone
2108857157
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Christianity
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$657,565
Expenses
$581,080
Assets
$1,294,781
Liabilities
$3,977

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARK SMITH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARK SMITH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $60,516 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To propagate the gospel of our lord jesus christ by evangelization and discipleship through both home and foreign missions. Impact water accomplishes this by building portable water systems in remote villages of honduras and preaching & teaching the gospel.

What it reported doing in 2025

Installed water delivery systems in three remote villages in honduras. We bring the gospel to these remote villages as we take 10 to 12 american men to each village. We work side by side with the men of the honduran village and construct the fresh water system. At night we show gospel films and preach and teach the gospel to the people of each village. The men from the u.s. Who go with us to construct each water project disciple the people who are interested in the gospel as a result of the films, preaching and teaching.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 88% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 59% for direct work, and 41% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 49
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.5%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 77%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 24th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 40%; rating input score 40; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11.6%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.23; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.4%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0% per year; rating input score 100; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.5% of revenue deployed · 77% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $448K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $61K · 5 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $118K reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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: Independent voting board scored 40/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.