The International Coalition of Sites of Conscience

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
204874389
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
6463974272
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,958,169
Expenses
$5,424,388
Assets
$1,110,749
Liabilities
$556,440

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Elizabeth Silkes (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • Elizabeth Silkes (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $260,952 total reported compensation
  • Ereshnee Naidu (SR PROGRAM DIR: TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE): $185,969 total reported compensation
  • Susan Azor (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND OPERATIONS): $162,553 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 International Coalition of Sites of Conscience (ICSC) harnesses the transformative power of collective memory to dismantle violence and injustice, paving the way for more equitable and peaceful communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Global initiative for justice, truth and reconciliation (gijtr) - lead a consortium of nine international partners as well as sites of conscience members in developing and implementing rapid response and high-impact programs in countries in conflict or transition following gross human rights abuses; create and disseminate program models, case studies and toolkits emerging from transitional justice programs around the world; contribute to the global knowledge base of practice and theory on transitional justice.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 93% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 53% for direct work, and 47% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 57
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 12
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.3%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 83.4%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $32.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 96%; rating input score 96; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: 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: -9.4%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.2; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.5; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.6%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.3% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.1% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91.3% of revenue deployed · 83.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $261K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 19 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 13 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.