Kings Water Alliance
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 863893903
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2021–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Fresno, CA, USA
- Phone
- 6613951000
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Alliance/Advocacy Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,422,693
- Expenses
- $1,078,875
- Assets
- $1,433,195
- Liabilities
- $97,891
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
People named in this filing
- Kassy Chauhan (Chairperson)
- Mark McKean (Director)
- Rodney Kamper (Director)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The specific purpose of this corporation is to maintain and improve the quality of life in the central San Joaquin Valley by implementing programs that provide access to safe drinking water for residents, and by engaging in activities with the goal of protecting or enhancing the quality of groundwater drinking water supplies for residents in the region.
What it reported doing in 2024
The outreach program to inform residents with domestic wells that may be affected bynitrates and offer them free nitrate testing, was launched in May 2021. Consistentpublic outreach has been critical to building community awareness of nitrate as agroundwater quality issue and to increase the number of households who takeadvantage of free testing and home bottled water delivery. During fiscal year 2024/2025, the Kings Water Alliance Interim Drinking Water Program performed the following public outreach: 96,000 mailers, nine public meetings, and attracted 5,800 website visits and 92,000 social media views. Results of this outreach included 620 well sampling applications solicited and received, 500 found to be eligible, 270 completed well samples collected for water quality testing, and new bi-weekly home bottled water deliveries to an additional 130 households, adding to the total of more than 830 households.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 96% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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
SUPPORTED - 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 some filed totals do not add up.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 66
- Transparency & Controls: 83
- Accountability: 70
- Sustainability: 68
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 65%; rating input score 65
- Program expense ratio: 88.7%; rating input score 89
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 24.2%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.33; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 21.1% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 13.9% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 65% of revenue deployed · 88.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $956K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $120K reported
- Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.