New England Anti-vivisection Society

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
042104756
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Boston, MA, USA
Phone
6175236020
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$988,635
Expenses
$1,379,527
Assets
$5,044,535
Liabilities
$92,951

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SARAH LUICK (PRESIDENT AND CLERK)
  • ED BUTLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ED BUTLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $174,992 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Founded in 1895, new england anti-vivisection society (neavs) d/b/a rise for animals is a national animal rights organization on a mission to end animal experimentation in our lifetime. Our efforts to expose cruelty in labs, rescue animals, mobilize support, get laws passed, and advocate for innovative, humane, and effective research will end an outdated industry and free animals from torture.

What it reported doing in 2025

Campaigns: program work that aims to increase public awareness of and support to end the use of animals in research or to change societal or institutional practices regarding general or specific anti-vivisection issues.education: program work that aims to educate and support students at all levels of public or private education and professional training regarding the use of alternatives to classroom animal use or to change educational institutional practices regarding the harmful use of animals in education.grants/awards: program work that supports collaboration with like minded individuals and organizations.

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 97% 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.7%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 66.3%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.16 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th 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; 64th 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: -39.5%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.66; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.7%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.8% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 93.7% of revenue deployed · 66.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 2 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $915K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $175K · 3 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $409K reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.