Nuba Water Project Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 208078010
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2025
- Location
- Centennial, CO, USA
- Phone
- 3034352073
- Rating
- 40
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- International Relief
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $27,416
- Expenses
- $34,169
- Assets
- $46,197
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Martha R Riley (Executive Director)
People named in this filing
- Martha R Riley (Executive Director)
- Stephen L Riley (Board Member)
- Sherilee Selby (Board Member and Secretary 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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Our mission is to bring clean water to the Sudanese people of the Nuba Mountains. We do that by developing and repairing water infrastructure and by providing water purification education and resources. Our work is for the benefit of all Nuba people regardless of religious or ethnic association. Note: In response to the ongoing conflicts in the Nuba Mountains, we have expanded our work to include humanitarian relief by purchasing and delivering safe water drops, and medical supplies. We also provide tuition, books, fees and other expenses to Nuba students displaced to other countries by the conflicts in the Nuba Mountains of Sudan.
What it reported doing in 2025
Bore hole repair. Support for three medical students. One studying in Kampala Uganda, one studying in Juba, S. Sudan, and one studying in Khartoum, Sudan.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 91% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- 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
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. 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: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 40
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -24.6%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.35; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- 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 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.