Autistic Self Advocacy Network Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
261270198
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2025584864
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Autism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,755,689
Expenses
$2,576,594
Assets
$3,653,854
Liabilities
$915,085

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • COLIN KILLICK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • AVERY OUTLAW (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • COLIN KILLICK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $157,503 total reported compensation
  • AVERY OUTLAW (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $101,461 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The autistic self advocacy network seeks to advance the principles of the disability rights movement with regard to autism. Drawing on the principles of the cross-disability community, asan seeks to organize the community of autistic adults and youth to have our voices heard in the national conversation about us. Asan believes that the goal of autism advocacy should be a world in which autistic people enjoy the same access, rights, and opportunities as all other citizens. We hope to empower people across the world to take control of our own lives and the future of our common community. Nothing about us, without us!

What it reported doing in 2025

Public education, outreach and advocacy that support the disability rights movement with regard to autism.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 65% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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 most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 59
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 74.9%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.79 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 89.5%; rating input score 89; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -46.8%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.42; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.25; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.1%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.7% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.3% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 74.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $158K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 23/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grants require schedule f did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.