Council of Literary Magazines and Presses

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
526074500
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2127419110
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,473,111
Expenses
$1,631,944
Assets
$2,415,077
Liabilities
$225,496

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • MARY GANNON (EXECUTIVE DI): $154,387 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 council of literary magazines and presses serves one of the most active segments of american arts and culture: the independent publishers of exceptional fiction, poetry and prose. The council of literary magazines and presses accomplish the backstage work of american literature: discovering new writers, supporting mid-career writers, publishing the creative voices of communities underrepresented in the main stream commercial culture, and preserving literature for future readers by keeping books in print.

What it reported doing in 2024

Technical assistance to independent literary publishers: providing technical assistance to independent literary publishers is our core program. It includes several regrant programs, one on one meetings with publishers to help with things including marketing, fundraising, and other publishing and nonprofit issues, a regular series of virtual and live roundtables, a series of techincal assistance publications and products, and a marketing program to encourage the use of literary journals in course curricula. Clmp's technical assistance program serves more than 500 small publishers annually.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 66% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 41% for direct work, and 59% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 94
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 90.3%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $41.58 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 61.4%; rating input score 61; 31st 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: 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -10.8%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.48; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.5%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.6% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.1% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.2% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 90.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $154K · 12 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 56 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 55 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.
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.