Humane World for Animals

Legal name: Humane World for Animals International

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521769464
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2024521100
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$35,136,528
Expenses
$33,629,207
Assets
$5,740,780
Liabilities
$1,654,337

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

Leadership & pay

32 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Anna Frostic (Senior Vice President, Programs & Policy)
  • Cristobel Block (Chief Executive Officer)
  • Jeffrey Flocken (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Cristobel Block (Chief Executive Officer): $676,674 total reported compensation
  • Angela Ciccolo (Chief Legal Officer): $426,985 total reported compensation
  • Alison Gregg Corcoran (Chief Development & Marketing Officer): $424,442 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 tackle the root causes of animal cruelty and suffering to create permanent change and a better world for all animals.

What it reported doing in 2024

END THE CRUELEST PRACTICES END FACTORY FARMING: CAGE AND CRATE FREE AND PLANT-BASED EATING HUMANE WORLD FOR ANIMALS INTERNATIONAL, FKA HSI, continued to lead the global movement to end the lifelong confinement of egg-laying hens in battery cages in 2024 by working with companies around the world to adopt cage-free egg procurement policies. HUMANE WORLD FOR ANIMALS INTERNATIONAL, FKA HSI, also continued to promote plant-based eating worldwide. Corporate and institutional commitments in South Africa, Brazil, Mexico, and across Southeast Asia continued to drive change in egg and pork producer companies, retailers and distributors, resulting in better conditions for hundreds of thousands of farmed chickens and pigs. (Continued to Schedule O)

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 64% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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: 69
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.1%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 74.3%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.44 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 22nd 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Pass
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.3%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.17; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.29; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.6%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.8% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 9 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 10 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 71.1% of revenue deployed · 74.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $25M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $677K · 32 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $5.7M reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 10 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 26/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 51/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.