Right to the City Alliance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943462187
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Brooklyn, NY, USA
Phone
3475695540
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Civil Rights

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,548,107
Expenses
$15,262,574
Assets
$26,430,370
Liabilities
$387,372

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAWN PHILLIPS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MALCOLM CHU (ASSOCIATE DIR. OF PROGRAMS): $177,070 total reported compensation
  • DAWN PHILLIPS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $160,883 total reported compensation
  • MARK SWIER (DIR. OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION): $157,618 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 organization is a national alliance of racial, economic, and environmental justice organizations that, through shared principles, are building a national movement for racial justice, urban justice, human rights, and democracy.

What it reported doing in 2025

The organization is working against gentrification, displacement of low- income people of color from their historic neighborhoods, and the drastic fiscal and social policy changes imposed on cities across the country.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, and 23% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 77.8%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.43 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 2nd 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: 98.5%; rating input score 99; 40th 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: -32.2%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.73; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.7%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24.5% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 20.6% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 24.5% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 77.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $11.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $177K · 21 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 34 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 57 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 48 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.