Human Needs Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
274583288
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2011
Location
San Rafael, CA, USA
Phone
4154922020
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,247,099
Expenses
$730,944
Assets
$1,065,941
Liabilities
$1,561

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Connie Nielsen (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kristina Yarmolich (Exe. Director): $103,333 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Human Needs Project (HNP) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that builds sustainable community centers that provide slums with clean water, toilets and showers, as well as scholarships, adult education, skills training, micro-lending and internet access in poverty stricken areas of the world.

What it reported doing in 2025

The Human Needs Project (HNP) is dedicated to fostering sustainable development in informal settlements by establishing high-impact, locally-driven community centers that cater to the essential needs of slum residents. HNP's Kibera Town Centre offers clean drinking water, sanitation facilities including toilets and showers, as well as opportunities for adult education, skills training, micro-lending, Internet access, food, driven by an urban farming program, and more. This holistic approach significantly reduces health disparities and enhances the well-being of families in underserved slum areas, equipping them with skills and resources to break the cycle of poverty.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 66% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 69
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 45.5%; rating input score 45
  • Program expense ratio: 77.4%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.93 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Pass
    • 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; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 41.4%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.46; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.1%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -9.8% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 45.5% of revenue deployed · 77.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $566K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $103K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 45/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 49/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.