City of Asylum

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
202810099
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Phone
4124351110
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,058,126
Expenses
$1,923,074
Assets
$4,393,289
Liabilities
$1,994,100

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CAROLINE LLEWELLYN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AS OF 1/24)
  • CHARLOTTE COHEN (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THRU 4/23)
  • ANDRES FRANCO GOMEZ (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THRU 1/23)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHARLOTTE COHEN (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THRU 4/23): $44,926 total reported compensation
  • ANDRES FRANCO GOMEZ (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THRU 1/23): $25,667 total reported compensation
  • CAROLINE LLEWELLYN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AS OF 1/24): $25,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

City of asylum builds a just community by protecting and celebrating freedom of creative expression. We provide sanctuary to endangered literary writers and artists, so that they can continue to write and their voices are not silenced. We offer a broad range of free literary, arts, and humanities programs in a community setting to build social equity through cultural exchange. And by transforming dilapidated properties into homes for our programs, we anchor neighborhood economic development.

What it reported doing in 2023

The organization provides living stipends and healthcare for two to three years and housing for as long as necessary to exiled writers-in-residence. The organization also provides support and housing to short-term visiting writers and artists in residence.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 80% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.7%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 60.6%; rating input score 61
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.74 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 24th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 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: 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: 6.6%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.28; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.45; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.7% of revenue deployed · 60.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $45K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2009 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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 58/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 50/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.