Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest

What it reported doing in 2024

The Arizona center for law in the public interest ("aclpi- or "the center") only litigates cases that serve the public interest. In 2024, our cases all served the broad public interest. In all of the center's cases, we do not charge our clients attorneys' fees. Arizona recognizes the private attorney general doctrine and has specific statutes that provide for an award of fees for the successful party. Under this doctrine, the center will seek attorneys' fees from the adverse party (the state of Arizona). 1. The center is litigating a case against the state of Arizona for its failure to adequately fund the capital needs of arizonas public schools. This case is actually a follow up case to one that the center successfully litigated 30 years ago. As a result of that case, funds were provided to bring all dilapidated schools up to standard, and money was to be provided to keep all schools in good shape. The legislature subsequently de-funded most of the programs that were established as part of the resolution of the old case, and Arizona is once again in a system under which a school districts ability to meet its capital needs depends to a very large extent on the amount of property wealth in the district. In 2024 the case finally went to trial. The center then participated in post- trial briefing through the end of 2024. (in 2025 we received a ruling and we prevailed, though legislators have stated publicly that they will appeal.) if the center is ultimately successful, then the state will be forced to implement a system that complies with the general and uniform clause in the Arizona constitution. This case will help the approximately 900,000 to 1,000,000 children in arizonas public schools. The case is captioned, glendale elementary school district v. State of Arizona. The named plaintiffs are four Arizona school districts as well as the Arizona school boards association, the Arizona school administrators association, the Arizona education association, and an individual taxpayer. The center has submitted a fee application on september 12, 2025 and is awaiting a ruling from the court. 2. The center successfully litigated a case against the state of Arizona on behalf of all of arizonas foster children. This case is a class action, where in addition to the general class of all foster children there are subclasses that pertain to subsets of children (e.g., those who receive medicaid services, and those who are placed in non-kinship settings). The case was brought because the state (1) fails to provide reasonable and appropriate services to Arizona's foster children; (2) fails to assure that foster children receive appropriate medical, dental, and behavioral health care; (3) unreasonably places children in congregate care settings (which negatively impact children); (4) unreasonably separates siblings; and (5) fails to timely and adequately investigate allegations of abuse of children while in care; and many other deficient practices. The state vigorously contested whether this case may proceed as a class action. The center (and co-counsel) have achieved victories on this question in the united states district court for the district of Arizona, and that ruling was largely affirmed on appeal in the 9th circuit court of appeals. The case is known as b.k. V. Mckay and the state of Arizona. The case sought broad relief on behalf of all current and future foster children, and obviously serves a broad public interest. The parties entered into a settlement agreement that was approved by the district court in early 2021. The center will continue to be involved in monitoring compliance with the settlement agreement. In 2024, we initiated a mediation/dispute resolution process due to the state's failure to implement solutions to problems as required by the settlement agreement. Monitoring is ongoing. Pursuant to the court-ordered settlement agreement, attorney fees for monitoring received during 2024 were 75,000. In august 2024, three years i

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
• Program expense ratio: 88.1%; rating input score 88
• Fundraising efficiency: $17.73 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

• Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 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; 63rd 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: 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: -17.4%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.89; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
• Officer compensation ratio: 47.1%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
• Revenue growth: -2.5% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
• Asset growth: 21.1% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings