*Why Not Ratable?CharityWatch is currently unable to rate this organization. This does not imply a negative or positive evaluation. Please see the Analysts' Notes section for a more detailed explanation. |
| Name | Title | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Laurent Huber | Executive Director | $274,517 |
| 2 | Elizabeth Furgurson | Chief Operating Officer | $195,478 |
| 3 | Chris Bostic | Deputy Director for Policy | $180,792 |
|
1 Name: Laurent Huber Title: Executive Director Compensation: $274,517 |
|
2 Name: Elizabeth Furgurson Title: Chief Operating Officer Compensation: $195,478 |
|
3 Name: Chris Bostic Title: Deputy Director for Policy Compensation: $180,792 |
CharityWatch is unable to provide a rating for Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) based on its fiscal year ended 12/31/2024 due to the charity's small size. CharityWatch's inability to provide a rating for ASH at this time does not imply a negative or positive evaluation. According to its fiscal 2024 IRS Form 990, ASH raised $446,654 in contributions and reported $1,523,325 in total expenses in fiscal 2024. ASH reports that it formed in 1967, according to its IRS tax Form 990. Also according to Form 990 reporting, it raised approximately $3.7 million in contributions during the five-year period 2020 through 2024, which averages to less than $750,000 annually (IRS Form 990, Schedule A, Part II, Section A). The financial reporting of small charities is often not comparable to that of larger ones for several reasons, including Economies of Scale: Economies of Scale Economies of scale occur when the size of an organization's operations allow it to operate more efficiently. As an organization grows it costs it less (per unit) to produce its goods or services due to its overhead and other fixed costs being spread over a larger volume of output. For example, a small charity that serves 500 poor people per year may need to pay $8,000 for its annual financial audit. A larger charity that serves 3,000 poor people per year may need to pay $10,000 for its annual financial audit. The first charity spent $16 per person served for the overhead cost of its audit, while the second spent far less at only $3.33 per person served. Charity rating methods suitable for larger organizations often cannot be fairly applied to much smaller charities given that the latter lack the economies of scale necessary to operate at the same level of efficiency. Small charities that assist underserved populations, that are fulfilling an unmet need, or that are new or in the process of scaling up to a larger size may still be worthy of donors' support despite CharityWatch's inability to rate them due to this comparability issue. |