Save the Children Action Network

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
465465189
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2026406000
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Civil Liberties

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,782,368
Expenses
$7,652,708
Assets
$4,297,456
Liabilities
$2,058,704

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRISTINA GLEASON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • MARK SHRIVER (FORMER PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JANTI SOERIPTO (BOARD CHAIR): $649,348 total reported compensation
  • ELIZABETH ZORIO (FORMER SECRETARY): $364,332 total reported compensation
  • CHRISTINA GLEASON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $339,256 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

As the political advocacy arm of save the children, scan is building bipartisan support to make sure every child has a strong start in life. See schedule o.

What it reported doing in 2024

Non-partisan advocacy: in 2024, scan's targeted strategy which includes a focused public policy agenda, grassroots mobilization and education campaigns and research-based communications, elevated the issues of early childhood education & child care, child hunger & food insecurity, and children in crisis throughout the world, with its dedicated group of activists and the general public. We also reached more than 258,000 voters with nonpartisan voter turnout messages and engaged with bipartisan candidates for public office 138 times.

Operating model

Revenue model
Affiliate-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
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. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 93
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.5%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 87.8%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.69 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 50%; rating input score 50; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.7%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.56; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.48; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.2%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.6% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.1% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86.5% of revenue deployed · 87.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $6.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $649K · 21 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $950K reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 30 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 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.

  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 50/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 50/100.
  • 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 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.