National Humanities Alliance Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
462701935
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
3016137460
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$537,724
Expenses
$161,690
Assets
$625,947
Liabilities
$82,163

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PAULA KREBS (PRESIDENT)
  • LENA HILL (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • STEPHEN KIDD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • STEPHEN KIDD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $205,262 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To advance the cause of the humanities through, but not limited to, conducting and supporting research, and disseminating information about the contribution of the humanities and of humanities scholars to society, and about the state of the humanities in society.

What it reported doing in 2025

The national humanities alliance (nha) foundation researches and communicates the value of the humanities to a range of audiences. Neh for all - the national humanities alliance foundation's neh for all initiative documents the impact of humanities projects supported by the national endowment for the humanities (neh) and works to create a clearing house of profiles of compelling national endowment for the humanities (neh) grants and a series of humanities town hall meetings to educate the public and policy makers about the important role that the neh plays in national and community life. Study the humanities - the national humanities alliance foundation's study the humanities initiative strengthens efforts to attract more undergraduates to the humanities by researching effective recruitment strategies and developing resources that showcase the range of approaches; aggregating existing data and articles into a toolkit that presents arguments for studying the humanities as an undergraduate; and convening the community of faculty and administrators committed to attracting more undergraduates to the humanities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% 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 - 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 28.1%; rating input score 28
  • Program expense ratio: 92.3%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $79.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 64th 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: Fail
    • 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: 69.9%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.87; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.2%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.1% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 28.1% of revenue deployed · 92.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $149K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $205K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 28/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.