Lewiston Park Water Company Lewiston Park Mutual Water Company

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942314833
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Lewiston, CA, USA
Phone
5307783502
Rating
34
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Utilities

Reported finances

Revenue
$281,175
Expenses
$332,190
Assets
$126,458
Liabilities
$6,879

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARY M NIXON (President)

People named in this filing

  • MARY M NIXON (President)
  • CARMEN S AREY (Secretary)
  • JUDITH P HASELTINE (Treasurer)

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 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Provide water and sewer service.

What it reported doing in 2018

Provide safe water and sewer services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 63% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 16
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 19%; rating input score 19
  • Program expense ratio: 16.1%; rating input score 16
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 7th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -18.1%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.38; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -29.8% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 19% of revenue deployed · 16.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2016 to 2018
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 19/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.