International Campaign to Ban Landmines - Cluster Munition Coalition Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 134113075
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Washington, DC, USA
- Phone
- 2026124356
- Rating
- 73
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Arms Control, Peace
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,579,559
- Expenses
- $1,556,556
- Assets
- $939,167
- Liabilities
- $268,184
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- TAMAR GABELNICK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SEE SCHED. O))
Highest reported compensation
- TAMAR GABELNICK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SEE SCHED. O)): $110,618 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 conduct research and educate the global community about the need to end the suffering caused by antipersonnel landmines and cluster munitions.
What it reported doing in 2024
The landmine and cluster munition monitor, a component of the campaign, was launched in june 1998 for the purpose of monitoring implementation of and the compliance with the 1997 mine ban treaty, and more generally to assess the efforts of the international community to resolve the landmine crisis. The monitor also aims to promote and facilitate discussions on mine related issues in order to help reach the goal of a mine free world.since 2010, the monitor is also in charge of monitoring the implementation of and the compliance with the 2008 convention on cluster munitions and more generally to assess the efforts of the international community to resolve the cluster munition contamination.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 99% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 81% 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. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 77
- Transparency & Controls: 77
- Accountability: 88
- Sustainability: 36
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 85.6%; rating input score 86
- Program expense ratio: 86.8%; rating input score 87
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Pass
- Conducts field audits: Limited
- May suspend future funding: Limited
- Requires financial reports: Pass
- Conducts site visits: Limited
- Requires grant agreements: Pass
- May require repayment: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 77%; rating input score 77; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 1.5%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.6; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.29; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 7.1%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -6.9% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -4.3% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 85.6% of revenue deployed · 86.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $111K · 11 people listed
- Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
- 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 40/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 47/100.