Ugandan Water Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271481728
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Lima, NY, USA
Phone
5853156160
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Relief

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,067,482
Expenses
$2,061,638
Assets
$537,463
Liabilities
$74,898

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMES HARRINGTON (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JAMES HARRINGTON (PRESIDENT): $81,799 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Uwp exists to end uganda's water crisis once and for all by building infrastructure that relieves immediate water insecurity today, developing sustainable enterprises that keep clean water flowing tomorrow, then advocating for national systems that ensure it stays that way forever

What it reported doing in 2025

Safe water TOMORROW: In 2025, 310 enrolled communities contributed more than 55,000 USD of their own resources to fund preventative maintenance via Aqua Trust, a local water enterprise that UWP has launched in Uganda. UWP provides catalytic funding to support the development of AquaTrust, a professional preventative maintenance service for rural boreholes. AquaTrust enrolls communities into a fee- based service that delivers ongoing maintenance and rapid repairs. The program is designed to ensure consistent borehole functionality, with a target of maintaining greater than 99 percent uptime across enrolled water points.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.1%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 82.3%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.86 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 3rd 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; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.3%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.26; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.8% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.2% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.2% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.1% of revenue deployed · 82.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $82K · 7 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $1.4M reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 38 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 38/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.