Scholars at Risk Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
822385660
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2129982179
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Human Rights

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,523,079
Expenses
$4,304,838
Assets
$10,358,509
Liabilities
$152,343

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT QUINN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • LISA ANDERSON (CHAIR)
  • LANCE LIEBMAN (SECRETARY)
  • MATTHEW NIMETZ (TREASURER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Scholars at risk (sar) is an international network of institutions and individuals whose mission it is to protect scholars, promote academic freedom, and defend everyone's freedom to think, question and share ideas.

What it reported doing in 2024

The scholars at risk network (sar) includes over 600 higher education institutions in 50+ countries in addition to regional coalitions in africa, the americas, and southeast asia. Over the past 25 years, sar has created thousands of life-saving academic placements for threatened scholars and leveraged more than $65 million from universities to help them continue their work in safety. Sar's academic freedom monitoring project has documented thousands of attacks on scholars and universities, shining light on a global pattern and urging those with power to increase protections and hold violators accountable. Through student seminars around the world, sar has helped to train a generation of future advocates, and its advocacy with the un and other intergovernmental bodies is advancing the recognition of academic freedom as a universal human right.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 77% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 68% for direct work, and 32% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.8%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 81.3%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $24.44 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.9%; rating input score 99; 36th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 34%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.41; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.4% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.4% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.8% of revenue deployed · 81.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 22 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 23 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $2.4M reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 7 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.