Human & Civil Rights Organizations of America

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943193388
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Salem, MA, USA
Phone
9787442608
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Civil Liberties

Reported finances

Revenue
$431,897
Expenses
$444,146
Assets
$388,051
Liabilities
$221,561

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Alex Desmond (Executive Director)
  • Marshall Strauss (President)
  • Michael Washburn (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Alex Desmond (Executive Director): $84,750 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We work with other nonprofits to help them increase their success in public-sector workplace charitable fund drives and other fundraising efforts. The federation screens applications for workplace drives, assists with the transfer of funds, educates the staff and volunteers of these groups so that they better understand workplace giving programs, and helps in the marketing of such groups to potential donors. The organization also offers similar support services to other federations on a fee-for-service basis.

What it reported doing in 2024

Combined Federal Campaign - We work with organizations to help them participate in and receive funding from workplace giving campaigns, the largest of which is the US Combined Federal Campaign (CFC). We assist these organizations to prepare required applications, screen the resulting applications for compliance with campaign eligibility criteria, report to admitted organizations the results of the campaigns, and distribute to the organizations funds donated to each organization as well as the names and addresses of donors who ask to be thanked. We provide marketing support to these organizations through our website (www.hcr.org) and advice on how they can better represent their own work to potential donors. We also conduct research into the operation of and results flowing from the CFC.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 50% for direct work, and 50% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.7%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 93%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 88.6%; rating input score 89; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.8%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.87; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.57; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.1%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -10.2% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -8.7% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -8.6% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.7% of revenue deployed · 93% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $413K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $85K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 12 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 33/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.