The Madagascar Water Project Inc PMB 888270

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
823697322
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2022, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Birmingham, AL, USA
Phone
2514638445
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$314,390
Expenses
$353,031
Assets
$108,403
Liabilities
$30,662

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Frederick L Rittelmeyer (Managing Director)
  • Michael Heneghan (Board Member)
  • Robert Rittelmeyer (Board Member)

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 Madagascar Water Project (MWP) provides clean water to rural villages in Madagascar through several activities: 1) new drill wells, 2) repair and rehabilitation of broken wells, 3) repair and rehabilitation of existing water infrastructure (dams, pipelines), and 4) construction of a new water infrastructure. The MWP works in five regions around Madagascar to provide clean water to 170k beneficiaries in more than 150 villages.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Madagascar Water Project built a 8-station municipal water system in the Lutheran compound, Village of Betroka, Regions of Anosy, sourced by an MWP drill well. The project provides clean water and shower/toilet facilities to tow schools, one church and approximately 1,000 residents. The project also provides clean water to the Villiage of Betroka, population 20,000, which lacks waterfor approximately 4-5 months each year. MWP maintains an operates this facility at no cost.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

STRONG - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 98.8%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -12.3%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.31; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.28; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 33.1% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 40% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 29.8% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 98.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $349K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.