Resilient Cities Network

Legal name: Global Resilient Cities Network

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
850990988
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Brooklyn, New York, United States
Phone
9173499699
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,658,918
Expenses
$4,386,418
Assets
$4,283,446
Liabilities
$507,503

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LAUREN SORKIN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • KEY HILL (DIR. STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP): $159,907 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

R-Cities connects cities and Chief Resilience Officers with a growing body of codified practice and the partnerships that move what works from one city to many.

What it reported doing in 2024

Program innovation - this unit designs, develops and implements all of our thematic programs which fall under 3 pillars of work: economic recovery & equity; climate resilience; and circularity. This unit is also responsible for developing new tools and services to advance our mission to support our member cities in becoming more resilient to the shocks and stresses of the 21st century.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 48
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 92.8%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th 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: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • 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: -65%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.98; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.6%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24.2% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.2% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 6 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 92.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $4.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $160K · 13 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 55/100.