U S Committee for Human Rights in North Korea
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 522345895
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2010
- Location
- Washington, DC, USA
- Phone
- 2024997970
- Rating
- 40
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- International Human Rights
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $516,574
- Expenses
- $524,211
- Assets
- $14,733
- Liabilities
- $8,146
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
20 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- GREG SCARLATOIU (PRESIDENT/CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- GREG SCARLATOIU (PRESIDENT/CEO): $167,360 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The us committee for human rights in north korea is a bi-partisan, not-for-profit 501(c3) human rights organization. Launched in 2001, the committee was created to generate a broad base of interest about conditions in north korea and to conduct and publish research focusing u.s. And world attention on human rights abuses in that country. The commtitee's work will lay a foundation of current and comprehensive information that will enable it to shine a spotlight on the abuse being perpetrated in north korea, and also to help individuals, ngos and policymakers seek ways to improve the treatment of the north korean people. In particular, the committee will focus on the prison camp system, the questions of access to food, and the plight of north korean refugee populations and the issue of human trafficking.
What it reported doing in 2024
To conduct outreach to the united nations, european untion, united kingdom, and other international entities, governments and interested persons about hrnk's objectives, published works, research findings, upcoming events and policy recommendations for improving the human rights situation of north koreans.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 5
- Transparency & Controls: 63
- Accountability: 69
- Sustainability: 18
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 6.5%; rating input score 6
- Program expense ratio: 6.4%; rating input score 6
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Claims monitoring procedures: Limited
- Requires narrative reports: Limited
- Conducts field audits: Limited
- May suspend future funding: Limited
- Requires financial reports: Limited
- Conducts site visits: Limited
- Requires grant agreements: Limited
- May require repayment: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -1.5%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.03; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.55; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 31.9%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -6.1% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 6.5% of revenue deployed · 6.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $34K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $167K · 20 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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 6/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 6/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.