Water Charity

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
262949390
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2008
Location
Yreka, CA, USA
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
International Relief

Reported finances

Revenue
$969,773
Expenses
$811,368
Assets
$583,434
Liabilities
$6,262

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jason Strasser (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jason Strasser (President): $76,332 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To supply clean water to people who are currently doing without around the world. To help alleviate the World Water Crisis that finds over 3 4 of a BILLION people doing without access to potable water by repairing wells and distributing filters.

What it reported doing in 2024

WASH Sector - Our basic projects and our extended programs all fall under the same WASH sector development work with the main work being WATER. There are a large number of people who are able to remain in school infants and children who dont die of waterborne illnesses their leading cause of death worldwide and people who had been refugees or might have become refugees before we repaired their village well or drilled them a new borehole. This WC program has spawned a large number of other nonprofits and NGOs as well as train a cadre of well technicians and repair businesses that go on to do this work independently of our projects and programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 80% 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.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 40
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 60
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 39.9%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 47.6%; rating input score 48
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.06 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 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; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.3%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.72; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.4%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 39.9% of revenue deployed · 47.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $387K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $76K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 43 of 45 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ForeignGrants column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.