Human Life Alliance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
411344006
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Minneapolis, MN, USA
Phone
6514841040
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$560,754
Expenses
$380,312
Assets
$762,074
Liabilities
$25,351

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MELANIE FREIMUTH (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANDY APLIKOWSKI (EXECUTIVE DI): $65,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Human life alliance (hla) distributes powerful pro-life information across the united states and around the globe on topics of abortion, teen sexual risk avoidance, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the dignity of all human life. Since 1990, it's pro-life magazines and materials have informed, inspired, and involved a diverse audience of 236.1 million readers in 88 countries.

What it reported doing in 2024

Pro-life organization support. Hla strives to support pro-life organizations with a goal of serving every pregnancy center in the united states. All magazines, fact cards, and other material offer assistance for these organizations. Many centers have teen sexual risk avoidance speakers who hand out just for girls/just for guys at local high scholls and church youth groups during presentations. Some centers request hla support for communication initiatives in their own neighborhoods and we will help them distribute our magazines via mail.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 69
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 45.9%; rating input score 46
  • Program expense ratio: 66.6%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.17 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd 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: 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 32.2%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.1%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.7% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.2% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 45.9% of revenue deployed · 66.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $253K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $65K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 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 46/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 41/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.