Humane World Action Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
593786428
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2026762314
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,371,045
Expenses
$6,100,955
Assets
$12,434,854
Liabilities
$2,029,884

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

Leadership & pay

29 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CRISTOBEL BLOCK (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
  • SARA AMUNDSON (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • SARA AMUNDSON (PRESIDENT): $301,949 total reported compensation
  • TRACIE LETTERMAN (VP. FEDERAL AFFAIRS): $240,328 total reported compensation
  • DAVID BALMER (SENIOR PHILANTHROPY OFFICER): $177,749 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

See schedule o

What it reported doing in 2025

Political activity the action fund endorsed one candidate for u.s. Congress, five candidates for local office in Illinois, one candidate for local office in Michigan, 20 candidates for state legislature in New Jersey, one candidate for local office in New York, 18 candidates for state legislature in Virginia, and one candidate for state legislature in Washington. The action fund solicited funds through peer-to-peer fundraising of its members and supporters for its federal affiliated political action committee and several state affiliated political action committees. (continued on schedule o)

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 85% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.7%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 73.3%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.68 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.2%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.04; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.6%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.2% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.7% of revenue deployed · 73.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $302K · 29 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.6M reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 10/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 39/100.