International Society for Urban Health

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
863869434
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
4049093093
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$781,912
Expenses
$614,141
Assets
$430,206
Liabilities
$1,042

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GISELLE SEBAG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • GISELLE SEBAG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $173,250 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Isuh advances the generation, exchange and application of urban health knowledge together with leaders from across academia, government, philanthropy, the nonprofit, and private sectors to achieve a healthier more equitable urban future for all people in all communities worldwide

What it reported doing in 2025

I-hip co.: the international healthy housing innovations project in and with communities (i-hip co.) supports healthier and more equitable urban communities through applied research, technical assistance, and cross-city learning. The program works with local partners to develop, pilot, and document community-led healthy housing strategies addressing affordability, housing quality, residential stability, and neighborhood conditions. Through this work, isuh strengthens local capacity, advances evidence-informed practice, and supports policies and interventions that improve the conditions shaping health in underserved urban communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 74% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and assets have declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 63.7%; rating input score 64
  • Program expense ratio: 81%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 21.5%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.7; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 28.2%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -21.8% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 63.7% of revenue deployed · 81% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $497K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $173K · 8 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.